Google "people shot this week" .

[DainBramaged]

The collateral damage of the NRA campign to arm everyone is not worth it.


There is NO excuse.


The gun culture can claim it's only the criminals, but when dows the flow of guns end?



When will we as a Nation say enough.



As you read this more people have died or been wounded by guns.


Shame on us.

[graham4anything]

1. If you ask me, everything against the president is because of the gun issue...the NRA knows

that once Hillary is President, in a few years, and the Court changes, it will reinterpret the 2nd and the NRA and guns will be gone from the streets.

Shame so many will die each day til that happens.

A crying shame.

And the zimmy trial is all about this too. The NRA so hopes zimmy will walk

A vigilante rent-a-cop with a gun and bullet stalks and kills.

The day is coming.
But people will die every day til then.

[michreject]

2. Making guns illegal won't stop the carnage.

Murder is illegal and yet the law fails to stop that from happening.

[Walk away]

3. Well then, let's make murder a right under the 2nd Ammendment!

Since making murder legal makes no difference according to an expert like you!

Gun logic....typically backward!

[DainBramaged]

4. Of course it won't, and you folks will cheer every Zimmerman that pops up

It's not about making guns illegal, it's stemming the flow and tightening controls on ownership, but obviously you're one of those who approve of collateral damage....

[michreject]

6. Damn.

I didn't know that this was a zimmerman thread.

[Eleanors38]

33. Like corn syrup. Creeps into everything.

[CokeMachine]

235. This could be a thread about the weather

and somehow it would get tied to Zimmerman or Snowden!! Actually kinda fun to watch the gymnastics some go through.

[Blanks]

19. We probably should repeal all laws then.

After all, what's the point in having laws if people are just going to break them?



Oh, I remember, it's because it makes those actions illegal so that violators can be punished.

[booley]

291. will it reduce it?

As I recall the purpose of the law was never ot create a utopia where crime no longer happened.

It's obstensible goal was to provide a frame work to reduce crime.

So saying the law doesn't' stop murders from happening. In fact, many murders are stopped.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. If some violent criminals were shot during home invasions, GOOD! Google "home invasions this week."

[RC]

7. What is it about some people's obsession about violence and death being A-OK?

Take away the tools that make it easy to do it from a distance and watch the violence decrease and the death tolls go down.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. That's contrary to the govt policy of letting violent criminals return to the streets while

going after and prosecuting medical marijuana users and State-approved dispensaries.

If those who commit crimes with firearms are kept incarcertated and away from firearms, that would reduce gun violence.

That's one approach. Another is to have economic reform so that there are more in the upcoming generation that can look upon normal employment as a way of life. Instead, it has been the policy to ship American manufacturing jobs to foreign countries. Detroit has been destroyed from within by governmental policies, as has been Chicago, Milwaukee, and many other large cities.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I always root for the victim/underdog.

Call it a character flaw.

[CokeMachine]

236. Yep -- I always thought of that as being progressive. Maybe I'm wrong?? nt

[michreject]

8. The miscreants that break into you home mean you no harm

BTW, In Cold Blood was a work of fiction.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

11. Yes, just making social calls. And when they take their violent criminal activies to other people's

homes, we're supposed to just look the other way. At least the MSM is doing its job in doing that.

[mikeysnot]

15. And Sandy Hook was a movie

no need for stupid emoticons...

[Nanjing to Seoul]

9. Okay, cue NRA talking points about guns from Gundamentalists in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. . .

[The Straight Story]

12. In 2007, 385,178 total firearm crimes were committed....

(385,178 / 50,000,000) * 100 = 0.7% of gun owners (* some estimates have ownership at 57-62 million)

(385,178 /170,000,000) * 100 = 0.2% of all guns in the US

(385,178 / 365) = 1055 stories a day one could post of gun owners using them in crimes

(50,000,000 / 365) = 136,986 stories a day of gun owners not using them in crimes


It is the few who stain the many that own guns and would be easier to focus on the causes that those few do what they do then try to change the many who do obey the laws already.

[michreject]

13. How dare you inject facts into the thread

Have you no shame?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. A consideration of facts will slow this down. Not to worry, though, because facts will be ignored by

those who only want to respond emotionally and/or encourage others to do so.

[intaglio]

16. So how many deaths do you regard as acceptable?

How many children?
How many elderly?
How many suicides?
How many "accidents"

Give us some numbers so that we know at what threshold your humanity kicks in.

[The Straight Story]

17. If that was the crux of the debate it would be a valid question

Would be like me asking "How many kids do you want to die because of cars/coal/etc per year"

The debate is on how to stop these things. Given that only a small fraction engages in such activities the focus should be on understanding what is behind why those few do so (alcohol, drugs, etc and so on).

Since the laws work over 99% of the time they seem to be doing what they were designed to do, so something else needs to be done.

As I have mentioned in another thread the percent is the same in other things, like owning a pool and the number of accidents there compared to number of pools owned - pretty much no matter what it is there will be between 0.1-0.9% injury/death/accident rate.

New laws on the devices won't solve the problem, in fact gun crimes over the years have went down.

We need to look at each case and figure out what is behind them that causes those few people to act the way they do and address those social problems.

[intaglio]

18. Cars have many uses, so does coal, so do knives etc etc

Guns have one, to method of action; i.e. to propel their shot at high velocity; and that action has one purpose; i.e. to cause damage, injury and death.

I can hear you now "...but knives have only one purpose, to cut!!1111!!" Knives have several methods of action one of which is to cut; The purpose of that cutting can be to incise, decorate, carve, prepare or just whittle.

As to the repeated howl from the gun groupies that cars cause far more deaths and injuries than guns let me ask this; Do you believe that private individuals have the right to own nuclear weapons because the motor vehicles have caused far more deaths than nukes? By your argument they do have that right.

[hack89]

20. There are many lawful uses for guns

hunting, self defense and recreation shooting come immediately to mind.

There are many ways to reduce gun violence and there is no questions that guns can be regulated but you need accept that there is an individual right to own guns in America. It is even in the Democratic party platform.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

21. No subject

Hunting= kill/wound/damage
Self defence= same as above
Recreation shooting is just fine by me as long it is in a controlled environment.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Well, as long as it's ok with you.

[hack89]

26. So what is your solution?

assuming of course that you can overturn Heller in your lifetime?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

34. Heller will be overturned

People in other industrialized countries do just fine with restrictive gun laws.

[hack89]

36. You hang on to that dream

everyone needs hope for a better tomorrow.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

44. I'm not sure why you think Heller is going to stay

The tide has changed.

[hack89]

47. There has been no sea change in America regarding gun control.

Some states with strict controls made them stricter. Some states made minor changes without embracing contentious issues like an AWB or registration. And some states passed pro-gun rights laws. And of course there is the complete gun control debacle in Congress.

I live in Rhode Island - a blue state with strict gun control laws that include universal background checks. And yet the public outcry was such that proposed gun control laws like an AWB and a magazine size limit were dropped like a hot potato. If you can't pass such laws in a liberal northeast state an hours drive from Newtown then you can't convince me the "The tide has changed.".

[BainsBane]

264. Polling data says otherwise

but the government is still firmly under control of corporate interests, so gun "rights" are secure.

[hack89]

268. Not on major issues like registration and an AWB

there is widespread support for things like UBCs - but controller insistence on packaging such popular measures with things like the AWB will guarantee that all will fail.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. You mean in MacDonald vs. City of Chigago?

Yeah, quite the change.

Not favorable to you, though.

[michreject]

194. Where's the indication of that?

A few anti gun states passing more anti gun laws?

[intaglio]

48. All of your lawful uses require that projectiles be propelled with sufficient force

to damage, injure and kill. It makes no difference if it is a target, an animal or a person.

[hack89]

50. So?

Punching holes in paper is not a crime. Killing animals is not a crime. Killing a human in self defense is not a crime.

Tens of millions of Americans own and use guns and never commit crimes.

[intaglio]

53. And that is relevant how?

Damage, injury and death. No other purpose.

[hack89]

56. Perfectly good reasons to have guns

especially if you insist on lumping target shooting in with murder.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Competition, training, recreation, self-defense

[intaglio]

63. I am pointing out that the sole purpose of a working gun

... is to damage, injure and kill. It does not matter what reasons there are for that damage, injury or death.

[hack89]

65. And I am saying that those are acceptable purposes in the vast majority of cases.

that's all.

[intaglio]

75. Acceptable does not change the effect

That effect, acceptable or not, is to damage, injure or kill.

What is more can you say 20 years down the line that those guns, now used acceptably, will not be used in unacceptable ways?

[hack89]

77. Since only a tiny fraction of guns are used in unacceptable ways

I don't see the problem.

As for the future, considering gun violence has been steadily falling for 20 years, while some may be used in unacceptable ways the likelihood is that fewer will be used that way.

[intaglio]

81. OK, assign a value to the lives

Tell me when such things might become "unacceptable".

As I pointed out earlier cars have killed far more people than nuclear weapons; therefore, by your argument, private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons because they are less harmful than cars when used responsibly.

[hack89]

95. All criminal acts are unacceptable

and I agree that we need to do everything we can to identify, deter and punish violent offenders. Use a gun in any crime and go away for a very long time. A crackdown on illegal gun trafficking is certainly needed.

I am not arguing that we should be allowed to own guns because they kill fewer people than cars - that is a stupid argument. I don't car about inanimate chunks of steel - the focus should be on what people do. We educate and punish irresponsible behavior.

[intaglio]

101. But you are making the argument that the vast majority of "responsible" owners

trumps just a few gun deaths.

So tell me at what level would you find the number of gun deaths unacceptable?

No need to give numbers, give a percentage of the population per year
50% ?
30% ?
10% ?
1% ?
0.01% ?

Oh, that last one that is over 300,000 people. So, how low can you go? What is acceptable?

[hack89]

107. Counting just criminal acts - .00002% nt

[intaglio]

121. About 600 deaths. Ah but those are not the only gun deaths, are they?

There are those who are, mistakenly, shot by the police. Those shot by the police who did not need to shoot. There are all those suicides many (not all) of which would not have taken place without a gun available. What about the kids who die because they or their sibling find their parent's guns? There are hunters shot by other hunters, those killed because stand your ground makes it easy to kill.

You are willing to accept 600 gun deaths so you must be very unhappy that the toll from avoidable gun deaths is much, much higher. But you are not because you have not thought it through.

[hack89]

122. That's where we are heading towards.

we have cut our murder rate in half and it is steadily declining. So we are on the right path.

Btw - I support all proposed gun control laws with the exception of an AWB and registration. There is more we can do - I agree with on that.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. You are ascribing intent.

The 'purpose' is to put a hole in something.

It is up to the intent of the user to determine if it kills, injures, or 'damages'.

[intaglio]

76. But there was intent on the part of the weapon designer and manufacturer

That these weapons damage injure or kill.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Completely made up.

One of my firearms is explicitly NOT for the purposes of damaging, injuring or killing. Try again.

[intaglio]

83. Name that weapon

Betya that the original concept was .... d,i and k.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. It is an AR-15

Equipped with a SIRT-AR Bolt. Do you know what that is?

I suppose you could injure someone if you shine it in their eyes.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Also, I could fix bayonet and stab someone with it, so inclined.

[intaglio]

94. so the original design of an AR15 is not to damage injure or kill

R-i-i-i-ght

SIRT-AR Bolt It's a laser, fits in place of the original AR 15 bolt. Here's a little video -

Neat, huh? and the bolt and cocking handle fit right back where they were taken from.

Nice try - sorry; very, very silly try

[AtheistCrusader]

100. Not in mine they don't.

I own that product. It does not fit in my 'real' AR-15, because my AR-15 is a pre-1986 colt design, which has full-auto fire control components. If you looked at the manufacturers site, it calls it out specifically. I do not have a non-laser bolt with which to place in that rifle.

I could obtain, or make one.

I could also drill out the de-milling in my starter's pistol.
You have basically no idea what you are talking about, but you are pretty good at manufacturing BS assumptions.

[intaglio]

110. so you are telling me that there are absolutely NO aftermarket parts

... that someone less scrupulous than yourself could buy?

And are you saying that there are no plans of these parts or CNC machines capable of making a new ones in less than 2 hours.

FFS even the cottage gunsmiths of the Khyber Pass could turn that sort of mechanism - and they do.

[AtheistCrusader]

111. That's exactly my point.

I could go out in my garage and MAKE the part easily enough.

I could make the whole fucking gun out of stock metal. In fact, it is perfectly legal for me to do so.

[intaglio]

123. Fine but it is faster and easier to do so if you have the base from which to work n/t

Why not use that metal shop to do something difficult, like make a pattern welded sword?

[AtheistCrusader]

127. I usually make automotive related parts.

I haven't had any inclination to make a gun yet.

I might make one for the purposes of occupying physical space in my gun safe though.

[intaglio]

131. So, by your own argument you AR15 could rapidly revert to being lethal

How's about that Mr 6,400?

[AtheistCrusader]

135. So could a solid block of steel.

[intaglio]

172. Rapidly ...

easily, even for non-machinists. Or does your so called toy vanish when you die at the age of 110?

[AtheistCrusader]

174. Let's see, a couple hours on the CNC or

a couple hours calling around to find one, or a couple days to order one.

Hmm.

[intaglio]

185. Hours or days finding the plans to input

Going down to the stockholder to get the correct stock of the correct alloys, bullshitting the guys who know full well what that type of material can make, inputting the CNC instructions, mounting the workpieces, furbishing and fettling the result ... and of course everybody has your leet skilz.

All you are doing is proving my point

[AtheistCrusader]

188. Wait, I thought people were making these with hand tools in the Khyber Pass.

(Which, of course, they are)

Love how you can have it both ways there.

[intaglio]

195. You're the one who brought up CNC machining

and simple parts like those for AK's are very common. Khyber copies of the AR 15 are made but not preferred as they use old fashioned lathes and mills then fit using files and grits. AR's take too much time and the ammo is less common than for the AK, (5.56 Nato vs 7.62 x 39)

[oneshooter]

106. The sole use of an auto is to tranport cargo from on point to another.

Yet they seem to kill/injure people at a alarming rate. Perhaps more control is needed.

[intaglio]

128. Oh, the old "Cars is more dangerous than guns argument"

Consider the amount of time people spend in and around moving cars.

Compare with the amount of time people spend round guns working on or with them, mostly a couple of hours at the weekend. Add in the fact that guns are designed to damage, injure or kill

Now tell me what is more dangerous ...

[AtheistCrusader]

137. Math says: cars.

[intaglio]

181. How many hours a day do you spend in and round moving cars?

How many hours a day do you spend in and around guns in use? The calculation depends on you multiplying the time by the number of vehicles or weapons used within 100 meters of your location. So 1 minute on the freeway might be the same as 1 hour car proximity time.

It's like the old falsehood about aircraft being the safest form of transport - that only works if you use distance (passenger miles) per accident. Use time traveled (passenger hours) per accident and it rail comes out on top every time.

[AtheistCrusader]

183. I spend more time around my guns.

At least one gun at most times.

How do we define 'around' here? Is in the garage like in my gun safe? Help me out here.

[intaglio]

189. In Use

but that addition does not help your case so you ignore it.

6,400 young people watering your personal tree of liberty.

[AtheistCrusader]

191. So, 'in use' means what, pulling the trigger now?

Are you serious?

[intaglio]

201. So walking by the nearest armoury would qualify you as a supreme survivor?

In use means in hand or holster ready for action, safety on or off. You do not have to be the one carrying any more than you have to be the one driving. A parked car very rarely runs over a person just as a gun in a secure case rarely shoots a bystander.

Of course you may carry all day everyday but that merely speaks of your personal obsession. You carrying 24 hours a day adds up to 24 gun hours plus the odd times when you are in proximity to others of your ilk. An hour on the freeway would be about 60 car hours

[AtheistCrusader]

202. I don't drive a car.

I do carry a gun.

You do the math.

[CokeMachine]

245. How about when a guns is being transported to the range??

Do they cancel each other out?? My gunsafe is ten feet away and my car is six feet away (both are locked). Which one should I count?

[intaglio]

251. You really must stop using statistics

All you are doing is exposing yourself to ridicule.

Just think about what you have just written and the idiocy contained in so few words.

[oneshooter]

203. A car is NOT DESIGNED to KILL. However it manages to do so daily.

Also they tend to injure far more people than firearms.

[intaglio]

206. Exactly, a gun is designed to damage injure and kill

You, presumably, support better safety standards for cars so why not for gun ownership?

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Probably makes a difference to the animal, target, or person.

My use of a firearm to harvest meat for consumption is a legitimate use of a firearm.

[intaglio]

64. It does not change the purpose of the gun

which is to damage, injure or kill.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Purpose is in the eye of the person holding it.

One could make a case that a car is just 'purposed' to moving a large amount of mass at high speed.

Sound a little bit like a gun now?

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Apparently all of my guns are broken then.

Except that one I got through the Civilian Marksmanship Program from the Ogden Arsenal.
You know, the one used to kill Fascists about 60 years ago.


Also, nice red herring on the 'nuke' canard.
As a civilian, you and I cannot, without some EXTREME exceptions (being in the business of manufacturing them, for instance) possess so much as a live grenade. A nuke is an extreme hyperbolic example of a weapon class called Destructive Devices, and they are not 'Arms' or 'Firearms', per the current legal understanding of the 2nd Amendment. They are area of effect weapons. They are indiscriminate. You cannot use them, particularly an OUTRAGEOUS example like a Nuke, without harming innocent bystanders. Therefore, they are tightly controlled, and rightly so.

"Right to Bear Arms.

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. "


That's from my State Constitution. Just as valid and relevant to my right to own/bear arms per the Federal 2nd Amendment. Please explain to me how one might use a nuclear bomb in defense of the SELF, or even in the service of defending my State?

No one on the 'pro gun' side is arguing for free access to Destructive Devices. Not even hand grenades. Total made up red herring.

[intaglio]

49. Are your guns capable of issuing a projectile?

If they are, is the purpose of that projectile to damage, injure or kill?

Answer honestly, remember it does not matter if the damage occurs to a target, an animal or a human.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Capable, yes.

So were all the 300+ million other guns in the country CAPABLE of issuing a projectile with lethal force.

Your 'it does not matter' criteria is silly and pointless. It could apply to knives. Knives are 'for' cutting and stabbing. Period. How you USE knives is the critical point.

Same for firearms.

We have more guns than humans in this country. Clearly their NORMAL mode of usage doesn't involve nefarious instances of shooting humans.

I own guns BECAUSE they can put holes in XYZ target material, just like most gun owners. (But not all, some collectors, curios actually disable the guns)

[intaglio]

55. Doesn't matter, the purpose of a gun is to damge injure and kill

Nothing more

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Again, not true.

I have some that are not suitable for those purposes, and are instead only suitable for training purposes. But the vast majority of my guns will suffice for 'injure or kill', and I wouldn't likely own them if that weren't the case.

I don't have any knives that are not 'for' the purposes of 'damaging' things. I might use them to carve out a beautiful piece of art, but they CUT to do it.

[intaglio]

66. Not suitable does not mean they cannot perform their purpose

If you think they are not fit for purpose render them incapable of firing permanently. Otherwise they can damage, injure and kill.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Given that you don't know what you are talking about

your suggestion isn't terribly surprising.

Again, some firearms are not suitable for injuring or killing, and only suitable to training purposes.

[intaglio]

72. Oh, where am I wrong?

If a training weapon is incapable of damaging, injuring or killing how is that done? Is there a block in the barrel and is the barrel incapable of replacement?

What about a firing pin removed or unable to touch the priming cap? Can that not be replaced?

Unless the piece is designed to be non-firing it can still - guess what?

Damage, injure or kill.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. That is absurd.

By extension, any middle-school metal shop is designed to injure damage or kill. If I de-mill a gun or place a barrel trap on it for the purposes of firing blanks, it could be reversed. Just like I could go MAKE a gun from stock steel and aluminium.

Better register lathes.

[intaglio]

78. A weapon is not just the barrel

In your example, a simple fix makes the weapon again capable of damaging injuring and killing.

A metal shop, even one in a gun factory, need not solely make guns.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. And guns need not soley be used to kill.

See how absurd your statement is?

(By the way, the firearm is defined as the receiver, per federal law.)

[intaglio]

85. Prove it, name the weapon.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. SIRT-AR Bolt equipped AR-15.

It was purchased specially so.

[intaglio]

69. What of shaving?

What of piercing?

Oh, and when have you made a beautiful thing with a gun?

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Still cutting and stabbing.

As for art, I have actually made art with a firearm. I have several conversational pieces where a stack of AOL CD's soaked up several rounds, and you can see the hole carved through it. I sealed them up in acrylic and they sit on my cubicle wall where people can see what it looks like.

For the record, it takes 52 AOL cd's to stop a .38 Special.
Not really sure how many to stop a .30-06. But the hole looks incredible. Like it was punched out by a machine, and you can see at what point the bullet expanded, because it goes from a quarter-inch hole to a 2 inch hole in the middle of the stack.

And yes, that IS art.

[The Straight Story]

29. So now it is about usage as well then? Or is it....

That some folks have almost a religious bias (like maybe something bad happened to them or someone they know) against guns the same way others do on, say, abortion (which has only one use as well)?

Nukes? Really? Why reduce things to the absurd? I get what you are attempting to say (like me saying your body, your choice should apply to a lot more than abortion, but few actually believe in the principal's they espouse) but in asking that you have discounted your earlier argument...guns can be used to hunt as well for food to help you survive. So while they have a singular purpose of moving an object from one place to another, the usages of that ability vary greatly and most people don't use it in a way that does harm to others.

Nukes would have no way to use without harming someone at all. It seems pretty clear to me.

[intaglio]

51. Your response at number 12 concentrated entirely on the apparent sparsity of gun crime

Going by your own very precise calculations can also show that there would be no harm in a private citizen owning a nuke.

The absurdity is only on your side

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Except of course civilians are not permitted Destructive Devices.

For obvious reasons, being no need for a person to have a device that kills ZYX number of people in ABC radius, without discriminating as to who is killed.

Firearms allow for said discrimination, which is why they are not classed as Destructive Devices (Except center-fire rifles in excess of .50 caliber, which is an anti-material weapon, meaning it'll go through 10 people standing in a line, and still continue on downrange with lethal force, for example)

[The Straight Story]

249. At this point it should be obvious that someone above is simply trolling

Which is when the discussion should end (ie, they will ask another question and twist answers - helps gets the post count up and deflect from the issue)

Note: not calling a poster a troll, discussing tactics of trolling

[Robb]

23. Gun owners are 13 times more deadly than car owners.

In the same year, 2007, there were 16 fatalities per 100,000 registered vehicles. That's 0.016% of all vehicles.

We register every vehicle on the road and license every driver.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. And we license every gun owner that carries concealed in all but 3 states.

You realize that most gun owners don't carry in public, right? We don't license cars that aren't operated on public roads.

[hack89]

28. We license gun owners that carry in public

I have no problem with stringent CCW and open carry requirements.

I have no problem with registering gun owners - a firearm ID card is a good way to ensure that anyone buying guns or ammo has received some safety training.

Registering guns is a non-starter. I agree with the ACLU on that.

[The Straight Story]

30. Oh, just talking fatalities? 0.006% then fur guns

11,078 killed / 170,000,000 guns * 100 = 0.006%

I was including all gun items, accidents, crimes, etc

How about a list of cars and injuries, used in the commission of a crime, etc for a better comparison?

[The Straight Story]

31. 0.9% for cars on Injuries alone:

254,212,610 registered vehicles
2,500,000 injuries

0.9% just on inuries

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. Apple, meet Orange.

Fatalities =/= all crimes.

You're welcome.

[Recursion]

35. I thought mere safety wasn't worth giving up rights for? (nt)

[DainBramaged]

37. So a few should die so you can have your gun?

[Recursion]

38. I'm for gun registration. I'm talking about the arguments I see on DU that giving up liberty ...

... for security is a bad idea.

[DainBramaged]

39. You didn't answer my question, you tried to circumvent it with a curve ball

we are not at war, should people die so YOU can have your guns? How is stopping gun deaths giving up freedom?

[Recursion]

40. I don't have guns, and I support gun registration

So I'm not sure how your question makes any sense.

[DainBramaged]

41. And neither did yours.

Life trumps 'freedom'. I would give up your 'right' to own a gun to save all of the ives lost to gun volence. Why should that 'right' trump life?


It's a simple question, and the answer is simple.

[Recursion]

42. OK, so your answer is "Life trumps 'freedom'".

That's what I'm asking. Most of DU seems to think that argument doesn't apply to phone calls.

[DainBramaged]

45. apples and lead

[michreject]

43. People have died for my right to own a firearm

Those same people died for my right to free speech, right of assembly, my right to vote and my right to feel secure in my home.

[DainBramaged]

46. Should they continue to die for that right?

Your right doesn't trump life and if you don't understand that you don't belong here.


You'll NEVER reply honestly because you wouldn't give up your guns to save ONE life, that is the selfish credo of the gunnie,

Have a nice gun loving life.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. That sounds a lot like the religious argument that I should believe just in case so my

soul might be saved, without establishing that I HAVE a soul in the first place, nor that it is jeopardy, nor that it requires saving, nor that it can be saved.

In your case, you haven't established that my ownership of firearms injures any other lives. Soon as you establish that, you'd have an argument.

[BainsBane]

73. crime statistics prove that guns kill 38,000 people a year

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Keep inflating that number.

Suicide isn't a crime. 2/3'rds of those deaths are suicide. Even if I pretend it is a crime;

2010 CDC:
Accidental discharge: 606
Intentional suicide: 19,392
Assault/Homicide: 11,078
Undetermined: 252

Total?
31,328

(Actually the CDC lists 31,672 as the total injury by firearms death toll for 2010, but they don't indicate where the extra ~300 come into the picture)

2011 CDC:
32,163



Are you telling me that 2012's preliminary data (not released yet) suggests 38,000 for 2012? Really?

[BainsBane]

84. Suicide is in fact a crime

on the criminal codes of most if not all states. DOJ includes suicides among homicides, and suicides are indeed a very important component of gun violence.

38,000 is an average.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. An average? From when?

Please cite your data.

[BainsBane]

97. An average over the past couple of decades

It's meant to be an approximation. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18483394.html

If it makes you feel better, I'll say 32,000, but I'm not going to pretend that suicides don't count because it helps you justify gun proliferation.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. "and federal statisticians expect a further drop when 1996 reports are complete."

Reports are complete through 2011, and the average is close to 32k.

Suicides are only interesting if your question is the entire banning of all firearms. Because there is no firearm mild enough to be safe in the hands of a suicidal person.

[BainsBane]

105. No, it's an argument for background checks

If a person is adjudicated a danger to himself or others, he shouldn't have access to guns. It's also an argument for requirements for gun owners to keep guns safely stored in safes so teens and other family members can't get at them.


Additionally, states need to quit giving guns to people with restraining orders against them. Those that deny them have seen a 7% reduction in homicides of women. I mention that here because some of those cases are murder suicides.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Most of that is already in place.

The only thing missing is, in some cases, some states don't do a good job reporting mental health disqualifications. This is because states are incentivized to report, rather than punished for failure to report. Change it from an incentive to 'fuck you no highway funds until you meet this requirement', and you'd solve that.

The rest hinges on universal BC's for all sales. Support you there. Of course, that does nothing for people who already own guns when they decide to commit suicide. Do we know or even suspect any sort of hard numbers of people who commit suicide with guns they bought say... 10 days or less before their death? The only cases I can think of that definitively show that are people who go into gun ranges, and rent a gun, and immediately shoot themselves with it.

(Lautenberg amendment already covers restraining orders, no guns for those folks)

[BainsBane]

115. Not true

On restraining orders:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


The background check issue is crucial, and the NRA and many gunners on this site oppose extending background checks. Some claim to support them, but then oppose legislation that does anything. They claim they'll support some theoretically perfect legislation, which means they don't really support them. Others just argue against their usefulness or workability.

[AtheistCrusader]

126. Bullshit it's not true.

You may have missed the Emerson case at the Supreme Court level. Lautenberg is legal. It doesn't matter if a state judge doesn't issue an order for a person to surrender their guns. If you have a DV related restraining order or misdemeanor DV conviction, you cannot possess a firearm. Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200$. Period, end of story.

It even applies to the Police, and the Military, EVEN in the performance of their lawful duties. Police and military are often fired/discharged for this reason.

Lautenberg was such a badass when he authored that law, it's worded so you can't even possess a gun that you purchased before the law took effect (1996) or if you had a conviction prior to 1996 WITHOUT it being thrown out as an ex post facto punishment, because as the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. (US. v. Mitchell) found, it is on the CURRENT possession. Something that can be stripped without considering an ex post facto issue at all.

States don't need to ban it. The federal government already bans it, and the Lautenberg Act's teeth survived the Emerson decision




I support background checks and 'perfect' isn't a requirement, but not criminalizing me for handing a gun my father gave me, to my brother at a gravel pit is not a 'transfer' requiring a background check.

[BainsBane]

136. Read the NYTimes article

In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations. They argue that gun ownership, as a fundamental constitutional right, should not be stripped away for anything less serious than a felony conviction — and certainly not, as an N.R.A. lobbyist in Washington State put it to legislators, for the “mere issuance of court orders.”

That resistance is being tested anew in the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Conn., as proposals on the mandatory surrender of firearms are included in gun control legislation being debated in several states.

Among them is Washington, where current law gives judges issuing civil protection orders the discretion to require the surrender of firearms if, for example, they find a “serious and imminent threat” to public health. But records and interviews show that they rarely do so, making the state a useful laboratory for examining the consequences, as well as the politics, of this standoff over the limits of Second Amendment rights.

You are obviously wrong on the practice of the law. Perhaps you care more about some abstract legal ruling than the actual women being killed. I do not. The NRA seems to have missed your memo.

[AtheistCrusader]

138. I dont give a shit what the New York Times got wrong.

http://www.aware.org/resources/legal-articles/11-karen-macnutt/93-lautenberg-revisited-restraining-orders-loss-of-gun-rights

It is the law, per federal statute.

Domestic Violence related protection order? Felony if you possess a gun.
Misdemeanor DV conviction? Felony if you possess a gun.

PERIOD.

[BainsBane]

141. You don't give a shit, period

I believe the Times over you, particularly when you are obviously far too emotional to bother reading about the facts. That article documents women killed by men with guns who had restraining orders and the fact the NRA is working diligently to make sure those men retain access to guns.

You couldn't be more blatant in your refusal to consider those women's lives.

[AtheistCrusader]

143. Clearly you cannot be bothered to look at supreme court decisions or a simple link

that I provided to you.

Keep complaining something that is already illegal isn't illegal.

Big fucking waste of electrons with you. THE LAUTENBERG ACT IS ALREADY FEDERAL LAW PERIOD END OF FUCKING STORY.
If some states aren't recognizing it or enforcing it, that is a matter for the federal Justice Department.

[BainsBane]

146. a law means fuck all if it isn't enforced

Last edited Tue Jul 2, 2013, 09:34 PM - Edit history (1)

and when the NRA is working to get around it. I happen to consider actual evidence more important than theory.

But I understand. My ex can kill me and it won't count because you read a supreme court brief somewhere.

[AtheistCrusader]

148. It is enforced.

What the hell is wrong with you. Jesus Christ, Lautenberg just died last month. Why are you trying to shit on his legacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. IT IS ALREADY ENFORCED.

[BainsBane]

150. What the hell is wrong with me is you are ignoring the evidence in front of you

which tells me the lives of women like me mean nothing to you. How can you expect anyone to give a fuck about your 2A rights when you don't give a fuck if we die?

Federal law is not state law. If it were, Heller would have done all with gun bans in Chicago.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. The Lautenberg Act applies to every single fucking citizen.

ALL of them.

Your example happened in Spokane. A short drive from me.

http://www.washrecord.com/Fed%20v%20WA.htm
IT APPLIES HERE IN THIS STATE.
If it is not being enforced, you have mechanisms to address that. The DoJ is your first stop. You don't need the Washington State Legislature to do a FUCKING THING to fix it.

(Which is good, because our legislature is rife with fucking Republicans)

[BainsBane]

160. Your link says it doesn't violate WA law

and it doesn't mention restraining orders

[AtheistCrusader]

161. Correct. Meaning, it applies here.

Seriously, if you have a DV restraining order against someone that you know to have firearms, and the state (WA) isn't doing anything about your complaint go here:


How to File a Complaint with DOJ

Criminal Enforcement

If you would like to file a complaint alleging a violation of the criminal laws discussed above, you may contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is responsible for investigating allegations of criminal deprivations of civil rights. You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in your district. The FBI and USAOs have offices in most major cities and have publicly-listed phone numbers. In addition, you may send a written complaint to:


Criminal Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66018
Washington, D.C. 20035-6018


There is no case law defense for this. State law is irrelevant. If he has a gun/can be proven he has a gun, and you have a valid order or he has a DV related misdemeanor conviction, that is actionable. There is no need for you to be unprotected. This law carries a 10 year, 250,000 felony penalty. It is a great law. It needs to be enforced.

[BainsBane]

162. File a complaint with the Civil Rights Division?

Are you fucking serious? Holy Mother of God. Think of all the women who will die waiting for them to act.

[AtheistCrusader]

164. And a state law would do what?

If the state is already NOT enforcing this law, what good does another law do?

[BainsBane]

167. I'm not necessarily talking about law

How is it all you care about is law? I'm talking about the fucking NRA and guys who murder their wives and judges who facilitate it by letting them keep their guns, just as the Times article suggests. If the judges don't know the law, it can't be as clear as you think.

[AtheistCrusader]

173. I can't defend the NRA here.

We are on the same side. I didn't actually know that the NRA was fucking around in smaller circles trying to circumvent this law. Not to this degree. There is no equivocation here. There is no discretion. The law is absolute.

I would love to know if there is some sort of conspiracy or racketeering charge the NRA could be slapped with for this. I don't know. Do you?

[AtheistCrusader]

168. Let's say there are police departments unaware of this law.

Officers take an oath to uphold the law. Please help me in reminding them of this. Contact police departments. Make it an issue at public reviews/town/city council meetings. Make them aware.

I do. I have pointed it out many times. I have worked to get city funds diverted TO this issue. To uphold the law. It IS the law.

If they are not enforcing it, the police are not upholding their oaths to uphold the law and the public trust. An egregious breach.

I have also worked to get money diverted to city shelters for battered spouses/partners/children, but that is a different issue. The issue of Firearms, at hand, is well covered by the late Senator Lautenberg. Please help me in reminding whoever is missing it, that the law exists and must be upheld.

[BainsBane]

178. I'm glad to hear that

Given that, I would have thought you'd show a bit more compassion or empathy in discussing the issue.

[AtheistCrusader]

182. It concerns me that we expend resources where they are effective.

in this case, it means upholding the federal law. Not duplicating effort at the state level. Effort spent passing a state imitation of this existing law is time and effort better spent on things like creating registries that the police can use to actually enforce the federal statute.

'Excuse me sir, we are here to deliver notice of this order, and we have a list of firearms that you possess. You need to hand them over to us, now.'

without tools like registries, the above hypothetical conversation can never take place. They can't enforce it to the full extent if they don't know who has the guns.

Let's do registration at the state level, and then if we call down the wrath of the DoJ on various LEO entities not enforcing the law, they have something to work with.

[BainsBane]

225. Well, that was evidently a pointless suggestion on my part

[AtheistCrusader]

232. If registration was the crux of your point

I misunderstood you, and I apologize.

[BainsBane]

238. No

This is what I wrote:

I would have thought you'd show a bit more compassion or empathy in discussing the issue (domestic violence and murder of women by their partners).

This conversation has been quite upsetting for me so I will need to bow out.

[AtheistCrusader]

244. I see expending maximum effort on practical legislation as

'compassionate', in that it is most likely to save the most lives.

I choose winnable battles. Registration is winnable, and gives the Lautenberg Act teeth. A state mirror of that law without registration is still toothless.

[BainsBane]

246. It has nothing to do with policy, in this particular case

I was referring to how you treat people who are victims of violence and your refusal or inability to show concern for those lost lives.

You systematically denied the fact those women were in danger by their abusers. That kind of denial is exactly what enables domestic violence to propagate. It's nice you helped a shelter get some money, but we all don't live in shelters. We are actually living breathing human beings who spend a great deal of our lives in fear of assault.

Guns in the hands of abusive partners is the number one cause of homicide of women in this country. Evidently doing something to prevent those deaths is a waste of energy and resources. Far better to work on extending shall issue concealed carry so their abusers have ready and portable access to guns.

[AtheistCrusader]

247. No I didn't.

"You systematically denied the fact those women were in danger by their abusers."

Don't attribute that shit to me. You may have interpreted what I said in that way, but all I said was the law to cover this issue already exists, and if it is not being enforced, there are tools for recourse. And I listed those tools.

You are mis-attributing what I said. That's not cool.


"Evidently doing something to prevent those deaths is a waste of energy and resources. Far better to work on extending shall issue concealed carry so their abusers have ready and portable access to guns."

Duplicating an already-existing statute is not 'doing something'. It's doing NOTHING and wasting resources. CPL's are not at issue, since a DV restraining order automatically abrogates a CPL.

[AtheistCrusader]

163. There is one, and only one weakness to this law.

It does not have an exemption for spouses or partners of batterers that drew a misdemeanor conviction of their own for using force in self-defense. Perhaps early in the process. Say the partner resisted but ended up being arrested the first time. A second conviction goes to the batterer, no difference. Both would be prohibited for life at that point.

The victim would have to have rights restored by a judge.

That's the only weakness I see.

[BainsBane]

132. So you're not interested in what states actually do

Just the law in theory? Abortion is legal under Roe v. Wade. Tell that to Texas, Ohio, and a whole slew of other states.

[AtheistCrusader]

139. I care what the law says.

Constitution/supremacy clause tells me all I need to know about the Lautenberg Act, and Emerson tells me all I need to know about its applicability to the states.

[BainsBane]

144. Okay, so as long as a statute somewhere say something

My life is meaningless. Understood. Amazing how the NRA is working so diligently to see women like me killed.

And you wonder why people think gun nuts don't care about human life.

[AtheistCrusader]

145. Making it double-illegal doesn't protect you.

Enforcing the law on the books might protect you.

It's already illegal from shore to shore, nationwide.

[BainsBane]

147. So read the fucking article

Pretend you give a shit

[AtheistCrusader]

149. I did.

You clearly didn't read mine.

THIS IS THE LAW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

All 50 states. Shore to shore, and non-contiguous.
If you feel a state is not enforcing the law, take it up with the United States Department of Justice. Or the FBI. That is their jurisdiction.

[BainsBane]

151. So how did those women die?

Ever occur to you that Wikipedia might be wrong?

[AtheistCrusader]

152. Wikipedia is not wrong about this.

I take it you aren't a lawyer.

If you don't believe Wikipedia, you could review each of the court decisions listed in the article. I assure you, every last one of them is correct.

[BainsBane]

155. No, I'm not a lawyer

Is that suddenly a requirement for posting on DU? Reading legal decisions says nothing about how they are interpreted or enforced.
How do you explain those women's deaths? How do you explain the NRA's efforts to ensure batters have access to guns?

[AtheistCrusader]

158. I can't explain the NRA's actions.

The NRA has multiple times tried to undermine the Lautenberg Act. It has survived EVERY LAST GODDAMN CHALLENGE.

It was a monumental piece of legislation, and a credit to the late Senator. A good guy, if ever there was one. If it is not being enforced, there are mechanisms to address that, just like any other federal law being ignored by any state.

[BainsBane]

157. This article talks about surrendering guns, do you get it?

Not new sales.

Among them is Washington, where current law gives judges issuing civil protection orders the discretion to require the surrender of firearms if, for example, they find a “serious and imminent threat” to public health. But records and interviews show that they rarely do so, making the state a useful laboratory for examining the consequences, as well as the politics, of this standoff over the limits of Second Amendment rights.

By analyzing a number of Washington databases, The New York Times identified scores of gun-related crimes committed by people subject to recently issued civil protection orders, including murder, attempted murder and kidnapping. In at least five instances over the last decade, women were shot to death less than a month after obtaining protection orders. In at least a half-dozen other killings, the victim was not the person being protected but someone else. There were dozens of gun-related assaults like the one Ms. Holten endured.

[AtheistCrusader]

159. If you have a DV related restraining order

and you so much as PICK UP SOMEONE ELSE'S FIREARM, you are committing a felony.

Maybe it was in your way. Maybe your roommate left it in front of the microwave, and you, the hypothetical recipient of a DV restraining order, pick up the gun and move it out of the way so that you might warm up a tasty hot pocket.

THAT IS A FELONY.

[BainsBane]

165. Perhaps you should tell the NRA to quit working

so hard to make sure those guys get to keep their guns? The Times article says it's up to the discretion of judges. Do you get that? They aren't forcing these guys to surrender their arms in all states.

[AtheistCrusader]

171. Then they are not upholding the law.

And in that case, the voter needs to replace them, and the DoJ/FBI should intervene. They have small capacity for humor for Law Enforcement/judicial entities that do not follow federal law.

There is NO discretion permissible under this federal statute. None. The Times is wrong.

[BainsBane]

176. I know a bit about the difference between law and practice

Your problem is not understanding how laws are interpreted and enforced. I'll give you an example. In 1886, Brazil passed a law making it illegal to castigate slaves. Do you think that meant no slaves were whipped after that date?

Colorado just passed a law making it illegal to acquire magazines over 15 rounds. Do you think that means that gun owners won't get their hands on extended magazines? Do you think that means police and judges are going to enforce the law?

I do not believe the Times is wrong. I believe you live in some strange la la land where you don't know the difference between theory and practice. I'm a recovering academic and still work in a university. I'm used to people being out of touch with reality, but you are taking it to new levels here.

[AtheistCrusader]

179. They may not enforce the law.

In New York, we already have a DA that says he won't enforce the 7 round mag limit ban.

There are ways to fix that. I have cited some for the issue you have raised. But even the 15 round or 7 round limit isn't a valid analogy. You're talking about state law enforcement ignoring state law. State law enforcement ignoring FEDERAL law is a whole different ball of yarn.


It's up to you and me to point out instances of that to the federal government so that they can act, and to the people failing to uphold the law, in hopes they fix it themselves before it comes to that.

[petronius]

186. I think, though, that there are two gaps between the federal law and what

might ideally be the case.

Firstly, it seems that the federal law (USC 922g 8-9) doesn't cover temporary or emergency restraining orders, but only those where the restrained person has had a hearing. So there's a period of time in most cases where a person may be subject to an order of protection, but not be prohibited from possessing firearms.

(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

Secondly, and this may be a quibble and maybe I'm misunderstanding, the federal law places no legal obligation or mandate on the state courts or agencies to enforce the prohibition in advance. An individual may be excluded from possessing firearms after the issuance of an order, but the onus would be on that person to get rid of them (and of course s/he could face federal charges for failure to do so after the fact). But there's no legal requirement (although arguably a moral one) for the state to enforce or investigate this impending violation of federal law at the time of issuing an order of protection.

I think these are the two issues that some states and Representative Capps are trying to address, over and above what was done by Lautenberg...

[AtheistCrusader]

190. The 'temporary/hearing' issue was abrogated by appeals court.

For a couple years, the amendment was actually overturned on that issue, but a district court of appeals re-instated it and overturned the overturn(?).

The latter part needs some sort of registration to make work. Otherwise, what stops dirtbag with order from lying to the police about not having any guns?

[BainsBane]

169. More from the Times

A handful of states have enacted laws requiring that judges order the surrender of firearms when issuing even temporary protection orders. The strictest states, like California, Hawaii and Massachusetts, make it mandatory for essentially all domestic violence orders; others, like New York and North Carolina, set out certain circumstances when surrender is required. In a few other states, like Maryland and Wisconsin, surrender is mandatory only with a full injunction, granted after the opposing party has had the opportunity to participate in a court hearing. Several other states, like Connecticut and Florida, do not have surrender laws but do prohibit gun possession by certain people subject to protective orders.

[AtheistCrusader]

175. And all of that is overridden by the federal statute.

The only thing of use here in the case of a couple of those states, would be a handgun registry or FOID, that the police could use as a list to come knock on the person's door and demand XYZ firearms.

Although, technically, it wouldn't matter. The moment the DV goes into effect, the person holding the firearm is automatically and instantly exposed to a federal felony charge.



I support registration for this reason, among other reasons. Can't have that at the federal level though, as long as the 1986 GOPA remains on the books.

[BainsBane]

177. Perhaps you should tell that to the judges involved

[AtheistCrusader]

180. I'll be happy to.

I've been shouting this law from the rooftops for over a decade. It's a great law.

Not everyone is aware of it. Lots of people hate it.

Lots of people have challenged it, and the various appeals courts and even the Supreme Court have sent them all packing with their tails between their legs. It's real. It's a real thing. It really does exist, and it really does send complete and total assholes to jail for rather long periods of time.

[petronius]

112. Can you cite some state penal codes that list suicide/attempted suicide as an actual crime?

Or a source for most/all listing it that way? I've always had the impression that assisting or encouraging suicide was often a crime, but the act itself was not...

[jmg257]

116. Does it matter? She lumped in suicide with murder, and explained that - big deal.

BTW - if interested - Google is your friend.

[BainsBane]

118. From Wikipedia

United States[edit]
Historically, various states listed the act of suicide as a felony, but these policies were sparsely enforced. In the late 1960s, eighteen U.S. states lacked laws against suicide.[19] By the late 1980s, thirty of the fifty states had no laws against suicide or suicide attempts but every state had laws declaring it to be felony to aid, advise or encourage another person to commit suicide.[20] By the early 1990s only two states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification.[citation needed] In some U.S. states, suicide is still considered an unwritten "common law crime," as stated in Blackstone's Commentaries. (So held the Virginia Supreme Court in 1992. Wackwitz v. Roy, 418 S.E.2d 861 (Va. 1992)). As a common law crime, suicide can bar recovery for the late suicidal person's family in a lawsuit unless the suicidal person can be proven to have been "of unsound mind." That is, the suicide must be proven to have been an involuntary act of the victim in order for the family to be awarded monetary damages by the court. This can occur when the family of the deceased sues the caregiver (perhaps a jail or hospital) for negligence in failing to provide appropriate care.[21] Some American legal scholars look at the issue as one of personal liberty. According to Nadine Strossen, former President of the ACLU, "The idea of government making determinations about how you end your life, forcing you...could be considered cruel and unusual punishment in certain circumstances, and Justice Stevens in a very interesting opinion in a right-to-die [case] raised the analogy."[22] Physician-assisted suicide is legal in some states.[23] For the terminally ill, it is legal in the state of Oregon under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. In Washington state, it became legal in 2009, when a law modeled after the Oregon act, the Washington Death with Dignity Act was passed. A patient must be diagnosed as having less than six months to live, be of sound mind, make a request orally and in writing, have it approved by two different doctors, then wait 15 days and make the request again. A doctor may prescribe a lethal dose of a medication but may not administer it.[24]
In many jurisdictions, medical facilities are empowered or required to commit anyone whom they believe to be suicidal for evaluation and treatment.[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation#United_States

[petronius]

120. I found that - I was actually curious about your statement that it's included

in the criminal codes of most/all states. The wiki sentence right before what you bolded says otherwise, but I'm not real confident in wiki as a general rule - thought you might have something better for your claim...

[BainsBane]

124. I actually thought it was still on the criminal statues

Wikipedia is a decent source. I see no reason why it shouldn't be valid here.

[AtheistCrusader]

140. So, it's not illegal then.

Unwritten laws aren't crimes.

[BainsBane]

153. Not according to common law

The piece explains that.

[AtheistCrusader]

154. An excuse not to pay out on a life insurance policy does not constitute a 'crime'.

[michreject]

197. Where did the additional 8K come form?

Dead people multiplying?

[michreject]

193. So you decide whether I belong or not

Damn. I should have sent all of my donations to you instead of the site.

[DainBramaged]

210. You can't even reply with an honest answer, just a corny deflection

we know your answer, we know what's important, and five dollars gets you a star don't kid us.


You aren't worth a single line of text more.

[OldEurope]

62. I googled "dead children since Sandy Hook"

Now I'm crying.

How can Americans tolerate this?

Edited to add: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

[AnotherMcIntosh]

86. Google "Gallup Poll reason why Democrats own guns"

You'll find:

[intaglio]

88. The gun nuts are going crazy

Love it

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Accurate as always.

[intaglio]

96. Unlike you and your AR 15 that's not designed to d,i or k n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

104. It's a shame you didn't know what you were talking about.

If that AR was meant to be used as a firearm, the aluminium upper is not advisable.

[intaglio]

129. The AR15 is designed to kill

The flim flam with which you dress up your obsession in neither here nor there.

[AtheistCrusader]

134. Again, you do not understand.

The cheap aluminum upper I am referring to is not suitable to withstanding the forces involved with firing live ammunition.

This happens to a different platform, the FAL:



Imagine being the person hanging onto that fuckin' thing when it let go.

[intaglio]

170. So it would take longer to machine a new upper than a full waepon?

so it is impossible to buy a new upper from legal or illegal sources.

yeah ... right

THE AR15 is designed to damage, injure or kill and you are pretending that the weapon you play soldiers with can never be altered to become a true AR15.

Pull the other one it's got bells on.

[AtheistCrusader]

199. I own one with all the POTENTIAL to do all of those things.

And in it's 30+ years of existence, has never done any of those things.

My point was I ALSO own guns for purposes OTHER than those three things. You have failed to falsify that claim, by equivocating that it COULD be modified to do so. Uninteresting.

[michreject]

198. Oooooohhhhh!!!!!!

I got one of them.

Mines a Springfield SAR 4800 Match.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

98. Google "number of people influenced by the use of the term "gun nuts"

You will find:

"NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/

Apparently, calling people that you disagree with "gun nuts" is not very influential. Have you noticed, it certainly hasn't resulted in a renewal of the AWB.

The NRA people probably appreciate you for using inflamatory langugage. Aren't you better than that?

[intaglio]

103. Sorry, but lots of people are also influence by the term "socialist"

It doesn't make them right and it is about time to reclaim both terms

[AnotherMcIntosh]

109. Good.

[DainBramaged]

117. To keep their precious, gun deaths are acceptable

they have no answer to my question other than none. But they won't say that.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

92. Google "Gallup Poll number of Democrats who own guns"

You'll find:

Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993

[One_Life_To_Give]

99. Oddly murder rates were higher before the gun was invented

Globally homicide rates only loosely track firearm possession rates. And still there are exceptions with countries with fairly loose firearm restrictions and very low rates while others have tight regulation and very high homicide rates.

Actually it may be that Homicide Rates and Chronic Poverty are much more aligned than any link to the type of weapons available.

[bobclark86]

113. Cue "go back to the Gungeon, NRA talking point" post in 3...2...1... n/t

[intaglio]

114. Well obviously a certain level of child deaths are acceptable to you

Care to inform us of what level that is?

Obviously the rate prior to gun ownership is unacceptable but how far back are you willing to go?

Oh, and citation seriously needed.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. It's already pretty low.

1-24 years of age:
Accidental 207
Suicide 2127
Assault 4108

Of course, halt the numbers at age 18, and it's 1/4 those totals or less if you include homicides.
And the accidental death number is not even a whole number percentage of total accidental deaths.

Personally I don't classify a 23 year old as a child.

(CDC 2010 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol 61, No.4)

[intaglio]

125. So you are saying that over 6,400 deaths per annum are acceptable

How ... charming.

Be sure to put that as your sig line so everybody knows who they are dealing with

[AtheistCrusader]

130. Acceptable is your word, not mine.

I don't find any of them acceptable.

But you and I use acceptable differently. I ALSO weigh 'acceptable' against other things that are or are not 'acceptable' such as making firearms generally unavailable to the public. A clear civil rights violation, that is not acceptable to me.

I think there are ways to reduce those deaths further (and they are trending down) without doing unacceptable things to accomplish it.

[intaglio]

133. you were the one who quoted figures to support your argument

If 6,400 deaths are not acceptable, how many deaths are?

[AtheistCrusader]

142. 0 deaths are acceptable to me.

Where you and I differ is what level of outright infringement on civil liberties are justifiable by said deaths.

Acceptable is as acceptable does.

[intaglio]

166. So you regard 6,400 deaths as a fair price to pay for your civil liberties

as I said, how charming.

[AtheistCrusader]

184. It's actually a hell of a lot less than that depending on how you define 'child'.

Innocent until proven guilty is another concept of civil liberty that costs us in lives every year, as people accused but not convicted of crimes they actually committed, go on to commit more crimes.

I assume you like the 4th 5th 6th and 7th amendments? Any one of them can result in a 'bad guy' going free to take a life later on.

[intaglio]

187. So adults don't count

Proving my point again.

You are willing to sacrifice other peoples lives for your civil liberties. Is this how the tree of liberty is supposed to be watered?

[AtheistCrusader]

192. You started this thread fork crying about children.

"Well obviously a certain level of child deaths are acceptable to you"

Pardon me for staying on topic.

[intaglio]

196. The thread began by mentioning deaths - the hint is in the OP

You are the one who has been insisting your liberties are worth the deaths of young people and adults.

[AtheistCrusader]

200. Worth?

I didn't say that. In fact, I stated clearly I do not even accept one 'in exchange'.

The exchange is not mine to make, quite apart from whether or not I WOULD.
Edit: Also, you should probably go take a shit all over this thread over here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023151014

Since you'd trade civil liberties for the illusion of security.

[intaglio]

204. OK so why do you support a no change to the second amendment?

Why have you been pushing the tale of the tiny number of gun deaths as if that allows is an excuse for your obsession?

[AtheistCrusader]

208. I'm open to a debate/discussion on altering the 2nd amendment.

Whatever gave you the idea that I am not?

[rdharma]

211. Yeah! Taking away our "Civil Liberties"!

That's exactly what the "voices in my head" told me too!........ Or was that something I read in the recent NRA talking points?

[intaglio]

214. ^^This^^

[AtheistCrusader]

215. I have no idea what the NRA is up to.

But the Supreme Court has identified this as a civil liberty. An individual right. The NRA might as well not even exist, really, given that reality.

[rdharma]

226. The NRA used to be a firearms safety and training organization.

Now they're operating as a PAC for the Republican Party and the gun manufacturers!

[AtheistCrusader]

227. I agree.

[rdharma]

231. Well......

[EX500rider]

205. Kind of a silly statement...

How many drowned children are acceptable to you? 3,500?

BAN POOLS!

From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day.

And don't bother with the "Guns are only designed to kill! Pools are recreational!" I think you will find most ALL DU gun owners use their guns recreationally at the range.

[intaglio]

207. Swimming pools are not designed to damage, injure and kill

Guns are.

Please note it is the supporters of gun rights who have been citing the low number of deaths as if that excused their position.

[AtheistCrusader]

209. So, device that outnumbers humans in the US, and is as you said, 'designed to kill'

kills fewer kids than swimming pools, of which there are something like 300 million fewer OF, and are not designed to kill...


hmm... math fails me. Perhaps you can explain the emphasis on the device that is DESIGNED TO KILL yet despite massively outnumbering NOT DESIGNED TO KILL pools, fails to kill as many children every year, as pools do.

[intaglio]

216. So a device that is owned by far fewer humans than there are devices ...

A gun is a load of laughs on a hot day ... only for gun nuts.

And of course a gun will help you survive a freak fall in a river - errr ... no, it won't.

A gun will get you to work safely - errr ... no it won't.

Guns will help you fight off your assailant ... errr ... except they didn't help Adam Lanza's mother or the numerous others killed by guns they owned.

Guns will make you safer - errr ... no they don't http://www.examiner.com/article/possessing-a-gun-makes-you-less-safe-not-more-safe

[AtheistCrusader]

217. Handwave away all you want.

How many pools are there in the United States?

How many guns?

How many kids die in each every year?

The math is simple, given that one object is DESIGNED TO KIIIIIIIIIIIL and the other is a container full of water.

[intaglio]

220. How many hours do kids spend in pools? Don't try using statistics

you're not very good at it. In any event poor pool safety does not excuse the excesses of gun owners.

All you are trying to do is say that because guns kill fewer people than swimming pools there should be no change to the 2nd.

If guns killed the more people than swimming pools would you magically be against them?

[AtheistCrusader]

221. What does hours in pools have to do with it?

Do you imagine all gun related deaths only occur when firearms are being used properly, by authorized users?

[intaglio]

223. Same as hours in and around cars and hours around guns

FFS you really must think I do not read my own posts.

[AtheistCrusader]

224. You're being silly.

Kids drown in pools of which they are not authorized users, having gained access against the owner's intent all the time. Pools they are not 'around' on a consistent basis at all.

Just like firearms that are not secured.

(Keep in mind, I am not against safe storage requirements, similar to not being against attractive nuisance ordinances for swimming pools)

[intaglio]

234. Time and numbers

as I said you really do not know statistics all you do is throw out the same tired old talking points without thought

[AtheistCrusader]

241. You didn't even answer my question

about how many damn pools there are, versus guns. You haven't established any comparative exposure rates. Nothing. You're just making shit up.

[intaglio]

254. Do you want me to take it one word at a time?

A pool can be occupied by multiple people at one time.

To get the human hours spent in proximity to a pool and thus capable of being harmed by a pool you add together all the time each individual human is near that pool. 10 kids for an hour is 10 man/hours, just like cars in my earlier example. One child living with a pool in the back yard is exposed perhaps 18 hours a day, assuming they do not sleep walk, is 18 man hours for each child. They are vulnerable the whole time because most families do not adequately secure their pool. I am sure you keep your guns completely secure when not in use.

Now as you have got to the point of shouting rude words let me leave you with this, if you carry a gun it is far more likely that you will accidentally shoot yourself or another than a person who does not carry a gun.

Guns are designed to damage injure and kill, no matter how they are later converted. You could convert a gun to be safe enough to be a hammer but that would not invalidate my first statement.

Guns are designed to act by issuing projectiles no matter how the weapon is later modded.

Guns are designed to have the purpose of damaging, injuring and killing. You may deny that all you wish but all you are doing is exposing the fantasies you employ to justify your position on gun control to yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

258. Intent matters.

I carry my gun for the explicit purpose of protecting human life. Period. And I have a decade-long track record of not fucking up.

Sometimes, with the right intent, firearms that are, as you say, 'designed to injure, damage or kill' can be used to preserve human life. (and human life is extremely precious to me)

That said:

Both issues extend in dimensions you didn't cover. The pool is not just a threat to a child that lives in the house. It's a potential threat to any kid exposed to/aware of its presence in any form. To any kid that might be passing through the yard it is sited in, lawfully/invited or otherwise. That helps your point.

But on the flipside you have to consider, again, not just kids that live in the household with the gun, but visitors, and secondary parties. Meaning, if someone breaks into the house and steals the gun, all the children exposed to that weapon downstream have to be considered. Then you have to consider victims within a reasonable physical distance of the gun, when in the hands of an incompetent or malicious user. 360 degrees of possibilities in 3 dimensions, for ranges up to a mile.

All of that said, there are a crapton of guns in this country that are, I accept as you stated, 'designed to kill, injure, or damage'. More than 300 million of them. That's an awful lot of devices 'intended' to kill, injure, or damage, that are not used to do so in greater frequency than innocuous, regulated, non-designed-to-kill, harm, damage, things that we use in our every day lives; like bathtubs.

[intaglio]

260. So you carry your gun to protect human life

By taking human life if necessary ... r-i-i-i-ght

As you say intent matters and, if you are not deceiving yourself, you intend to take human life if necessary.

Of course you are perfect and so will only shoot wrongdoers leaving zero chance that you will shoot an innocent.

Sorry you are not Superman, you have a much higher chance, either by accident or design, of damaging, injuring and killing yourself or an innocent

[AtheistCrusader]

262. I may also protect human life by taking predatory non-human animal life.

But taking a human life to protect another is within a range of possibilities.

You don't have to be superman to competently follow 'the four rules'.

[intaglio]

266. This changes nothing except exposing, again, how you puff yourself up

How many starving children have you fed with your leet huntin' skilz?

How did you read the future of the predators you killed to be certain they were the ones who were going to harm humans?

Carry on using fraudulent arguments to justify your obsession and I will point out again that your tree of liberty is regularly watered with the blood of innocents.

[AtheistCrusader]

269. You don't know what I do for a living.

You make a lot of fast and loose assumptions though.

I have fed my family quite well, thank you.
What you call 'obsession', most of us call a normal day.

[intaglio]

276. I did not make any assumptions about your living

what I said only concerned the boasts you have made.

You said

I may also protect human life by taking predatory non-human animal life.

and I asked

How did you read the future of the predators you killed to be certain they were the ones who were going to harm humans?

You have also made the statement that you hunt for food and I said

How many starving children have you fed with your leet huntin' skilz?

If you choose to assume I am talking about your children not a general class of starving children outside your family I am sorry for you.
You said

What you call 'obsession', most of us call a normal day.

I am very sorry but most people are not in the least interested in guns. As has been admitted, gun owners ore only a minority of the population.

[AtheistCrusader]

285. You realize there are people employed by the state for the purposes of eliminating predatory animals

right?
Tracking and eliminating animals that have caused either property damage, or personal injury already, right?


Do you see why you are jumping to conclusions now?



Why in the blue fuck would you even wonder if I have taken upon myself the burden of feeding other 'starving children' that are not my own?

[intaglio]

256. Number of pools doesn't matter, as I showed

It is time exposed to danger from those stationary objects.

And none of this detracts from the designed purpose of a gun being to damage, injure or kill.

[AtheistCrusader]

289. Number of pools is directly relevant to figuring out

how many hours X number of kids are exposed to the things.

[intaglio]

292. Nearly right,

Is a pool in a city more dangerous than one in the back yard of a farm in Saskatchewan?

But as I have posted recently to you it is a false equivalence anyway, post 290 http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3165456

[EX500rider]

212. I don't quite get that argument either..

.....so something "designed only to kill" does so at a lower rate than something designed to transport you around and that's somehow bad? (while existing in far greater numbers also)

If pools are not designed to "damage, injure and kill" but still manages to do so how is that not worse?

[intaglio]

219. By design guns are meant to damage, injure and kill

It does not matter whether it is a target, a bird or a man, it will damage or injure or kill

Guns are very effective at killing, indeed they are probably the most effective personal device for performing that function. Swimming pools are not very effective at killing which is why the military arms its troops with guns and nor swimming pools.

Guns only kill "at a lower rate" if you look at gross figures, in exactly the same way that aircraft are "the safest form of transport" in terms of passenger miles but promptly loose their title when you consider "passenger hours".

The argument made by persons here has been that because guns kill so "few" it is not worth loosing the precious right to keep and bear arms.

If you point out that by that argument ownership of nuclear weapons by responsible should be allowed under the 2nd because they have harmed far fewer people than cars or guns or possibly even swimming pools you are accused of being silly or exaggerating.

When you point out that the seeming infrequency of deaths cannot justify the ownership of a device which was designed only with the intent to damage or injure or kill you are accused of only being interested in numbers, or ignoring the lives saved or fixating on numbers.

[AtheistCrusader]

222. Hunting isn't a civil right.

Would you deny me my ability to hunt over this issue?

[intaglio]

229. We are talking about guns, not hunting

Go take a boar spear and find a hog, I don't like it but I have no objection as long as you put your life on the line for your "sport"

Hunting for the pot is pretty inefficient even with a gun given the lost time, unusable carcasses and similar. My brother in law took pot shot at a rabbit when he was stationed in Germany. Trouble was he was using a Smelly and hit square in the centre of the head and down the body, what was left was unusable, Roy taught me a lot about using that weapon.

[AtheistCrusader]

230. I didn't say anything about 'sport'.

Hunting isn't a 'sport' for all users. Sportfishing involves catch and release. Trophy stuff. Sport hunting is the same, antlers, 'kill photo's', etc. I'm talking meat in freezers for consumption, not a trophy on the wall, so you can skip the scare quote bullshit around the word 'sport' because it doesn't apply. I eat what I kill.

So yes, you want to limit me to non-firearm technology for hunting? Good luck finding even 20% of the nation that agrees with you.

[intaglio]

233. An in another post I pointed out how inefficient fodder hunting is.

[AtheistCrusader]

243. Your definition.

I find it far less carbon and other GHG intensive than farmed protein.

[intaglio]

252. Citation needed

[AtheistCrusader]

253. I highly doubt

anyone is aggregating data for the methane and other emissions of creatures that are naturally part of our biome, nor is it AGW because the animals are not produced in a factory setting purely for the purpose of human consumption.

So the INCREASE of farmed meat over wild game emissions ought to be patently fucking obvious.

Edit: Excepting situations where some species over-populate because humans have removed all natural predators for farming purposes, AGAIN, a human farming issue, not a wild game issue.

[intaglio]

255. So support your argument about fodder hunting

But do not expect it to have any bearing about the purpose of guns being to damage injure and kill.

[AtheistCrusader]

259. No point.

The end result is, you using the term 'damage/injure/kill', which is of course, not a moral hazard with the proper intent. Shooting a paper target is not a moral hazard. Shooting a deer for the meat is not a moral hazard. Etc.

You'd like to frame it so, but that doesn't make it so.

[intaglio]

261. As I pointed out - you are not Superman

You have a far higher chance of damaging, injuring and killing an innocent (yourself included) than of stopping a bad man

[AtheistCrusader]

263. 'chance'.

I do not believe this word means what you think it means.

By the way, of the 80 million gun owners (who own in excess of 300 million firearms), 9 million have concealed carry permits.

That's a lot of people carrying guns, one might even think it could be used to demonstrate the general effectiveness of carrying a firearm for protection, versus accidents and sudden malicious use by a previously law-abiding individual...

[intaglio]

267. And far more innocents have died than bad guys

again, the tree of your liberty is regularly watered by the blood of innocents.

[AtheistCrusader]

270. Died, yes.

Finally, you make a statement I agree with.

Not the whole picture but by itself a true statement.

[intaglio]

274. You've come one step

Now all you have to do is to see that not all innocents are killed by "bad guys" and that even some "bad guys" may be innocent.

This means there are perfectly honourable and honest gun owners/users who have killed innocents.

[AtheistCrusader]

284. There are also a lot of lawful DGU's in which no one is killed.

The US Department of Justice indicates between 60,000-100,000 per year, depending on the year.

[intaglio]

287. To go back to a false equivalence

and there are an awful lot of kids diving into swimming pools where no-one is killed.

[AtheistCrusader]

288. False only because you reject the analogy.

I accept it, actually. I'm not trying to ban swimming pools.

(Though I do support certain regulations on the possession of firearms, and swimming pools)

[intaglio]

290. It is not an analogy, it is not even a metaphor it is false equivalence

A swimming pool cannot stand in place of gun. A swimming pool cannot be picked up and carried round. People choose whether to use a swimming pool or whether to remain in the vicinity of a swimming pool. A swimming pool has to be used by the victim before it can cause their death.

[AtheistCrusader]

293. I presume you are referring only to accidental deaths?

[intaglio]

294. No, because the victim has to be acted against

to take them into the vicinity of the danger. Someone walking past the 221B Baker Street where Sherlock Holmes is shooting "VR" into the wall* is not being acted against to bring them into the vicinity of danger. This vicinity could be under water or the whole captured and taken to a pool and left blindfolded on the edge.




=====================================
* "The Musgrave Ritual" in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes

Side fact but fascinating; as I was checking the reference I found out that Holmes is linked to the Webley RIC revolver and Custer is known to have owned a pair and supposedly used them at Little Big Horn

[AtheistCrusader]

295. And someone placed involuntarily underwater in the pool?

Seems roughly analogous to someone maliciously using a firearm against another human.

There are also pranks/jokes that sometimes turn rather serious around pools, much like 'don't worry, it's not loaded *BANG*'.

Neither imply willing cooperation/participation by the injured bystander.

[intaglio]

297. Nope, you might find a closer parallel

between harnessing a cocked sten gun to someones head and shaking the victim until the weapon fires. Both are acts of murder but one is a realistic scenario and the other could be the plot of a late series CSI: Miami*.


==============================
*Damn! I've published it now, I can't claim thousands of bucks for copyright infringement

[One_Life_To_Give]

271. Univ of Warwick Long Term Historical trends in violent crime

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/postgraduate/ma_studies/mamodules/hi971/topics/interpersonal/long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf

Note the first English firearms law wasn't written till 1901 at which point the Homicide rate had already fallen to 2 per 100,000. Slightly less than it is in the UK today.

From a global perspective the lower bound of the Homicide rate is shown to be the Nordic countries between 1880 and 1900. Maybe that is where we should look for clues on how to find actual peace in our society.

[intaglio]

273. Fine, so what level of death amongst young people due to guns is acceptable?

Thanks for the citation, although (if I recall correctly) these conclusions have been criticised because of extrapolations from incomplete data as well as insufficient allowance for changing social mores, but that is only my recollection.

[One_Life_To_Give]

275. 0.2 per 100,000 threshold?

The study I linked would have us conclude the minimum homicide rate possible under any circumstances is 0.2 per 100,000. That would be for the overall population. I suppose that would need to be adjusted by the age distribution amongst the victims of Homicide to determine what the theoretical minimum rate is for "young people".

[intaglio]

277. So in excess of 6000 deaths per annum

(2 in 100, 000 and a population of 313 million) is in your mind an acceptable price to pay for gun freedom. Would it be more acceptable if there were "only" 600 such deaths?

What if your children are amongst that number? Is that still acceptable?

I repeat you are insisting that all US citizens water the tree of this particular and archaically worded "liberty" with the blood of innocents.

And all because some folks want to play with machines designed with the sole purpose of damaging, injuring and killing.

[One_Life_To_Give]

279. Beating Carnot Efficiency would be nice too

People aren't so unlike physics, on a societal scale. 0.2 per 100,000 yields 626 Homicides per year amongst 313million. If that is the baseline rate in which any Human society will kill each other then it's the best we can hope for. Maybe some day we can prevent Jeffrey Dahmer's from being born. But Eugenics brings it's own pitfalls.

In the mean time it is only Tyrants who insist on being protected by Armies while insisting that nobody else could possibly be entitled to not slit their own throat on request. Strikes me as little different than the Feudalism we left behind centuries ago.

[intaglio]

280. Please note that I did give the correct figure later in the post

sorry I misread because you are asking us to accept that in excess of 600 deaths per annum is an "acceptable price" for, not all your freedoms, but. only. this. particular. archaically worded freedom.

If the US was in a state of revolt or being invaded you might have a point but guess what? You. are. not.

Now let's look at this brave and lying comment.

In the mean time it is only Tyrants who insist on being protected by Armies while insisting that nobody else could possibly be entitled to not slit their own throat on request. Strikes me as little different than the Feudalism we left behind centuries ago.

Guess what? no-one is proposing all weapons be removed this. I repeat no-one. The only proposal is that there be some rational gun control to help prevent weapons from being in the hands of the irrational and violence prone and, possibly, that the capacity of magazines be limited. All you have done is make a self serving attempt to rabble rouse by equating those who want gun control to those who want tyranny.

You want others to water your liberty with their blood.

[One_Life_To_Give]

281. Guns are irrelevant to the 0.2 Rate

If it is the threshold we could go back to living in trees and we would have that rate of homicide. 313million people will kill 623 or more of their fellow people with their bare hands if necessary.

And your OP is not about BAN's? That would be hard to infer from the rhetoric. It uses the term Gun's with no qualifiers.

[intaglio]

282. I asked what rate you found acceptable and that was the figure you gave

Live with it.

Oh, and when you were posting that nice little link provided to you by ... others, you forgot to realise that the fall in violent deaths prior to the removal of guns shows that social attitudes provide the biggest brake upon violence.

There is actually every indication, in the article you copy pasta'ed, is that gun control would further lower the number of violent deaths and certainly reduce the number of suicides.

You are the one who wants others to die for your freedom.

[One_Life_To_Give]

283. Public Perception of the acceptability of using Lethal Force

Impulsivety, Instant Gratification, low self control.

The same issues that haunted us since before we left the tree's. Along with a serious devaluing of Human life. What was true in the 16th century is still true today.


When we as a society finally get sick and tired of putting up with the violence. Then we the people will finally get all the illegal guns off the streets. And the hoods will get the message that we won't put up with their shit anymore. But until every man, woman and child is willing to drop a dime on each and every illegal firearm and would be hood out there this blight will continue. IMO Crime rises to the level we as a society are willing to tolerate.

edit spelling

[DainBramaged]

213. I can see clearly who the NRA hacks are in this thread.....

defend to the death (no pun intended) the right to own a gun no matter who dies.


How sick of you all to live like that, how utterly sick.

[Progressive dog]

218. ^^K&R^^

[BainsBane]

228. and pretend those who die really don't

Keep denying deaths. It's amazing.

[intaglio]

237. or that the deaths are, comparitively, so few

That it has to be sacrificed for the holy freedom to carry a gun and get bruised hands or shoulders, lead inhalation and hearing damage.

As I observed earlier their tree of liberty is watered with the blood of innocents.

[BainsBane]

239. Indeed

And there is nothing they hate more than being told that.

[galileoreloaded]

240. anchor a statement in self-rightousness and knee jerk, get this OP.

[intaglio]

257. Are you just a drive-by poster?

or do you actually have anything of value to offer?

[BainsBane]

265. Nope

Don't hold your breath on that one.

[DainBramaged]

286. Just another gunner showing us a mirror image of themselves

not smart enough to dispute the facts, just throw graffiti on the OP.


I consider them donkey ditches.

[One_Life_To_Give]

272. Such words alienate

Such words alienate those of use for whom Rights come with restrictions and responsibilities. Only a fool thinks every person is entitled to posses lethal weapons . And only a tyrant would advocate restricting them based upon less than for cause and with due process.

I observe that gun control often seems to end with unlimited protection for our anointed royalty. While the masses are implored to place their heads within the Guillotine for any who might merely ask.

[DainBramaged]

278. I don't give a shit

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Read my signature line and I thank you for loving guns more than life.


If we spent as much on AIDS research as we do on guns in the USA, the disease would be conquered. "We stop being something to be proud of when we love our guns more than we love our children." I walk the land unarmed. And unharmed.

[BainsBane]

296. Your notion of tyrannical gun control

doesn't exist. All rights fall to the corporate gun lobby and gun owners and none to us who would like a chance to be free from gun violence. Pretending otherwise is ludicrous.

You're concerned about words "alienating." I'm concerned about guns killing.

[rdharma]

242. I already told the NRA that I didn't want to hear from them again.........

....... and then I get another solicitation in the mail sending me an NRA sticker and trying to get me to send in dues.

Gee! I wonder what I should do with THIS postage paid envelope? ..........



I've got a few ideas!

[DainBramaged]

248. 20 pound bag of manure?

[rdharma]

250. Along those lines!

It's gonna' cost them!