A GUN DOESN'T ALWAYS PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

[fightthegoodfightnow]

The friends of this family will tell you that because the family can't:

COCKEYSVILLE, Md. (AP) — Baltimore County police yesterday charged a 15-year-old boy with fatally shooting his parents and his two younger brothers as they slept at their home in a suburb north of Baltimore...........

On Friday night, he went into the house after other family members were asleep and shot each of them using one of his father's guns, which was in the house, police said.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080204/METRO/16967472

[CTyankee]

1. uh, oh, here come the gun folk.

Not this sh*t again!

[SteveM]

45. Hey, complain to Fight the whatever.

[NOLALady]

2. It doesn't always protect police.

Last week an officer tried to arrest a mentally unstable suspect. The suspect shot her with her own gun.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/01/young_officer_devoted_to_work.html

[fightthegoodfightnow]

5. Unfortunately........... YOU are CORRECT

Having a gun in and of itself doesn't protect anyone.

[SecularNATION]

3. Who claims it will?

A gun Don't? Should be DOESN'T.

No one claims these things do not and will not happen. Some parents are irresponsible.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

6. Noted

CORRECTION NOTED.

You write: 'No one claims these things do not and will not happen.'

Things happen?

Such a shrug off when my typo takes top billing to four MURDERS.

Things happen........good grief.

[SecularNATION]

9. Still didn't answer the question

Who says guns in the home will ALWAYS make a family safer?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

12. No One I've Quoted

Glad you agree with me.

[zanne]

180. Gun nuts do. nt

[east texas lib]

4. I see...

Ask the friends of the family 'bout that personally did you? Or are their deaths just a
favorable statistic for you?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

7. If You Can't See that the Gun They Had in their House Didn't Protect Them

......... but rather was used to kill them, then I suspect you just............ trying to be civil........... can't read.

[sabre73]

16. Yes the gun was used.

This tragic event is a strong case for proper and secure storage of your firearms from ALL minors and people who should not have access to your guns.

This child sounds like he is suffering from some serious issues that would have led him to these murders. That being said, if he is that messed up then he might just as easily used a ball-pin hammer, a knife, or some poison to reach the same outcome. It sounds like the gun was just the most convenient for him to use at the time and I would suspect that it was due too poor storage of the firearm on the fathers part. But that is just speculation.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

20. Agree

.......... but it makes my point made earlier that just having a gun doesn't make your home or family safer.

It has to be safely secured and even if it is, you have to be trained how to handle it and have it accessible in the 'right' room.

Family members being killed by guns, either accidentally or intentionally, are not uncommon.

[Tejas]

30. As usual, your point (if you can even call it one)

is silly.

Tell you what, as an exercise to show how teeny-tiny-narrow your point is, break into a gunowner's house and when the dust settles let me know who was safer, you or the gunowner.

:eyes:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

51. Read the Article Again

I'm struggling to have a hard time understanding why you do not support proper training and storage of arms. Of course, your inability to say just that is........... well....... SILLY.

[Tejas]

63. not about the article, about your points of debate (ie: none) n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

67. Proper Training and Storage

I wrote: 'I'm struggling to have a hard time understanding why you do not support proper training and storage of arms. Of course, your inability to say just that is........... well....... SILLY."

Do you not support proper training and storage for arms?

It's a pretty simple question.

[benEzra]

76. Speaking for me, I agree with proper training and storage.

I probably disagree with your conception of "proper storage," though, based on your other posts, and I refuse to give an official the power to revoke my right to own a gun by giving the state carte blanche to define "proper training." I believe in formal training, but not as a precondition to own a gun.

I have been shooting avidly for more than two decades, and I would cautiously say that I am more competent with a firearm than half or more of the police officers in this country, and that I know more about civilian self-defense law and firearms law than most. I would also suggest that I would easily pass most states' State Police pistol quals with my compact Ladysmith 9mm, never mind a full-size duty pistol, and most state's State Police rifle quals with my civilian AK, which is generally considered a tough rifle to shoot well. Yet many in the gun-control lobby would say I don't have "proper training" to own a firearm.

Gun accidents are exceedingly rare in this country, and the rate thereof is still falling. I don't think you can build much of a case for "lack of proper training" being a pressing issue WRT gun ownership, unless the training issue is merely an excuse for gun-owner licensing a la the UK.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

80. You Refuse: Good for You

You write: 'I refuse to give an official the power to revoke my right to own a gun by giving the state carte blanche to define "proper training."'

No one is talking about revoking your right to own a gun.

And yet you acknowledge that many more professionals who use a gun for a living are not as qualified to do so despite you not needing a gun for your profession..

You write: 'I have been shooting avidly for more than two decades, and I would cautiously say that I am more competent with a firearm than half or more of the police officers in this country,'

Thanks for supporting my point that not all gun owners are equally qualified to use arms safely.

Gun accidents are rare? You're not serious.... are you? How many high profile cases like the one that started of this thread or the VP of the US do you need to hear to consider them more than rare? The start of this thread involved how many lives?

[benEzra]

89. Yes, they are rare...try the National Safety Council...

Gun accidents are rare? You're not serious.... are you? How many high profile cases like the one that started of this thread or the VP of the US do you need to hear to consider them more than rare? The start of this thread involved how many lives?

Yes, they are rare...try the National Safety Council, Safety Facts, 2007. Out of 109,277 accidental deaths in 2007, only 730 involved guns (0.67%). That includes hunting accidents, accidents by police officers, accidents by criminals, everything. According to NPR this week, guns as a category ranked last in the accidental death rankings, even behind poisonings this year (a first). In a nation of over 300 million people, yes, that's rare. By comparison, falls killed 18,807 people in 2004 (latest year I have access to for that data). 5,976 pedestrians were killed by cars. 4,600 choked to death on their food.

And note that those gun-accident stats include accidents by criminals, who are substantially overrepresented in accident stats and who are far more likely to store, carry, and use guns in an unsafe manner. FWIW, very few of those deaths involved children, and gun accidents involving the 0-14 age group fell by 69% since 1995.

Here are some more 2004 stats.

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

BTW, the incident in the OP was a murder, not an accident. Multiple-victim murders are also quite rare, but we hear about nearly all of them; not only do stories of violence sell papers, but they create the false perception that rare, multiple-sigma events are commonplace, which serves the agendas of those who spread them. Somewhat like terrorist events in the West, which are exceedingly rare, but creating the perception that they are common creates a feeling of imminent risk, which in turn justifies policies that would be otherwise unacceptable to the public.



To address your other points:

You write: 'I refuse to give an official the power to revoke my right to own a gun by giving the state carte blanche to define "proper training."'

No one is talking about revoking your right to own a gun.

The Brady Campaign, VPC, Million 500 Mom March, IANSA, etc. who are calling for UK-style licensing provisions as a means to UK-style ownership restrictions are...what?

I don't own guns that would be legal under UK style licensure. I own handguns and small-caliber rifles with modern styling, and those guns I wish to keep.

And yet you acknowledge that many more professionals who use a gun for a living are not as qualified to do so despite you not needing a gun for your profession.

I'm not sure I follow your point here. Please elaborate.

You write: 'I have been shooting avidly for more than two decades, and I would cautiously say that I am more competent with a firearm than half or more of the police officers in this country,'

Thanks for supporting my point that not all gun owners are equally qualified to use arms safely.

Unless you are calling police officers "gun owners", I don't follow your point here, either. The extreme rarity of gun accidents, and the continuing improvement therein, shows that nearly all legal gun owners meet at least the minimum qualifications needed to own them.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. Got It

Got it........... so we are losing as many Americans accidentally to guns on an annual basis as we are losing Americans in the Iraqi war.

[zanne]

181. Been to see your buddies at gunsite, have you? nt

[benEzra]

46. True, merely having a gun does not make you safer.

Having a gun that you know how to use, and a well thought out method of storage and rapid access, can make you safer. My wife and I are in that category, thanks.

I also reserve the right to choose for myself whether or not to keep a gun for defensive purposes. I stay the hell out of your bedroom/living spaces, and would appreciate it if gun-control activists would stay out of mine.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. Our Gun Law Doesn't Reach Into Your House at All

Period.

PS - you can still own a gun in DC. The law restricts certain types of arms.... not all arms.

[benEzra]

61. So you oppose new Federal gun bans, then?

If you do in fact oppose Federal "assault weapon" bans, Federal storage laws, etc. then thank you. But I did refer to activists in general, not specifically you, and the repubs at the Brady Campaign sure as hell want to meddle in the contents of my gun safe, and to prohibit me from keeping them in a defensive mode.

BTW, D.C. lets you own most rifles and shotguns of 19th-century design and pre-1861 capacity, but you cannot legally possess one in a functional state anywhere in your own home, at any time, even in your own bedroom. That is absolutely unacceptable to me, and was precisely what I was referring to in my previous post.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

66. Not Unlawful for DC Citizens to Have Arms

This is what I wrote: ' Our Gun Law Doesn't Reach Into Your House at All."

Let me clarify: Our DC gun law doesn't reach into your house at all (since you do not live in DC).

Yes, I'm aware that DC allows it's citizens to have arms making the argument that our gun law is unconstitutional based on the right to keep and bear arms being violated seem unsubstantiated.

[benEzra]

70. But you can't bear them even in your own home...

and the classes of arms you are allowed to own is so ridiculously circumscribed as to almost nullify the right. It is as if you outlawed 75% of books, banned reading the other 25% even in your own bedroom or study, and claimed that your law did not impair your ability to keep and read books.

Defending that level of gun prohibition as "reasonable gun control" certainly doesn't help your case with regard to advocacy of new Federal gun laws.

And I didn't claim that DC's gun laws affect me; but your support of Federal bans on the most popular civilian guns in America (some of which my wife and I own) does affect me. That's the area in which I'd like you to stay out of my house, just as I stay out of yours.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

71. Not True

Not all arms are banned in DC. Not even they type that were around when the Constitution was written.

There is nothing federal about our gun control laws. They are local laws being contested in a court we had no representation in confirming.

Once again, let me remind you, that the Supreme Court could very easily restrict it's ruling to the District, since it is not a state......... not unlike everything else they do.

[benEzra]

72. Yes, true. Those few guns you are "allowed" to own must be disabled or disassembled, always.

Not True

Yes, true. Even those guns you are "allowed" to own must be disabled or disassembled, always, no exceptions. Even inside your own home. That provision was explicitly mentioned by the court that struck down the D.C. statute, and I note with some interest that the District is not even bothering to appeal that one, since they didn't mention it in the last brief I read. Apparently they consider that one indefensible on its face, and are appealing the handgun ban only.

I've posted the actual statute before; apparently you didn't read it. But it is a crime to possess an assembled, loaded gun inside your own damn bedroom in the District of Columbia, even if the gun is a 19th-century style hunting rifle or a hunting shotgun with a paramecium-sized magazine capacity.

Nor did I say that the D.C. law bans all guns. I said it bans a majority of guns, which it does. Most 19th-century style long guns are allowed :nopity:, except those that hold too many rounds in the magazine. But you still can't have an assembled and loaded gun in your own bedroom, regardless of how antique it looks.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

73. Right.........

.............so you can keep those arms in your house !!!!!

There is nothing in the Constitution that says they have to be abled and assembled. Is there?

[benEzra]

74. To "bear arms" is generally understood as having a functional firearm in your hands.

Not a disabled decoration. It's not an "arm" if its incapable of functioning.

The phrase "keep arms" would also imply the power to at least keep a functional firearm inside your own house.

You are reading the Second Amendment the way opponents of Roe v. Wade or supporters of warrantless wiretapping try to read the Fourth. You can't have it both ways.

FWIW, the court struck down the no-functional-gun-even-in-your-own-damn-bedroom portion of D.C. statute precisely on the grounds that it was a direct and blatant infringement of a homeowner's right to keep and bear arms. The District didn't even bother to appeal that portion of the ruling in its brief, apparently considering the law indefensible from that standpoint. I agree.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

75. Generally Understood?

According to whom?

You write: 'It's not an "arm" if its incapable of functioning."

But of course, it is capable of functioning.

Not a single arm available at the time the Constitution was written is prohibited from being owned in DC. Not one.

[benEzra]

77. Even handguns?

BTW, would you consider a law that outlawed all forms of media not available in 1791 to be a violation of the First Amendment, or not? I would...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

78. Two Questions Asked

First question: Yep.

Second question: All forms of media are not being banned anymore than all forms of guns, whether available then or now.

I'm not the one who implied that the intentions of the authors of the Constitution were being dishonored. Everything they were protecting is being protected today.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

79. According to whom?

Generally understood by whom?

I'm happy to answer your question............ try answering mine.

[benEzra]

83. Well, try every single discussion of the term, anti-gun or pro-gun, I could find...

for example, here:

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

which sums up pretty much all the arguments that have ever been made regarding the applicability of the phrase "to bear arms," whether it means individually (including self-defense) or collectively (in the service of the government), and whether it is meant to be literal (carrying a gun in readiness for armed conflict) or figurative (as a metaphor for armed conflict by any means). But always, in every analysis I find, is the assumption that those arms are combat-capable, otherwise the arguments (on both sides, whether collective or individual) become nonsensical. In all the years I've been following this issue, I've never encountered the "nonfunctional arms" argument until just now.

I'd love for you to show me some citations in which the term "keep and bear arms" is interpreted as applying exclusively to disabled weapons. But your own city's lawyers apparently consider that interpretation untenable, since they apparently aren't bothering to appeal that portion of the court ruling, judging from the brief they filed.

And again, I reiterate, to put any arms into a functional state in D.C., so that you could bear arms for lawful defensive purposes against an intruder inside your own home, is a crime. Even if someone is kicking in your door; there is no exception whatsoever for defensive purposes, which was IIRC the reason why the court overturned that statute. You commit a crime if you possess a loaded, non-disabled 19th-century-style shotgun in your own bedroom at any time under any circumstances, and that is just wrong.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

86. DC

You write: 'But always, in every analysis I find, is the assumption that those arms are combat-capable, otherwise the arguments (on both sides, whether collective or individual) become nonsensical. '

You know what they say about someone who assumes something .........

You write: 'I'd love for you to show me some citations in which the term "keep and bear arms" is interpreted as applying exclusively to disabled weapons. '

Where does it say in the Constitution one way or the other?!?!?!

You write: 'And again, I reiterate, to put any arms into a functional state in D.C., so that you could bear arms for lawful defensive purposes against an intruder inside your own home, is a crime.'

As it should be. And for over two decades the people of the District of Columbia have weighed your arguments against those who think the quick and easy availability of guns have made our community less safe. If your arguments were as compelling as you think they are, then please do explain why the people of DC disagree with you.

[bossy22]

92. why would it

be illegal in DC to defend yourself with a firearm?

[HiDemGunOwner]

93. Apparently not everyone in DC agrees with your "failed social experiment"

Even Marion Barry concedes that "everyone but the criminals are abiding by the city's gun control laws..."

http://www.examiner.com/a-573391~Freedom_from_fear_is_also_a_right.html?cid=all-hp-featured_editorial

A decidedly unscientific poll by a DC area news channel found 87% responded "yes" to the question "Should handguns be legal in DC?"

Seems like more than a few "people of DC" disagree with you....

[fightthegoodfightnow]

96. 87% - LAUGHING

The Examiner? LOL.

Obviously, you don't know much about DC or the Examiner.

As for your unscientific poll, I don't give much weight to it, since the law has been in existence for decades and there's never been a referendum effort to put it on the ballot. So much for "your" 87%.

[HiDemGunOwner]

99. Feel better?

Good...the facts remain (the Barry proposal was reported on by multiple sources...)the same. So, despite, as you pointed out, my limited knowledge of the Examiner and DC, he did just as the story said. Not, IMHO a very good solution to the issue of gun violence, but still, he tried. The fact that someone as anti-gun as Barry would even suggest such a moratorium, as well as acknowledge the fact that only the good guys are obeying the laws, hence the continued and escalating gun killings in your city ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/31/AR2007123102329.html - yes, for 2007 gun killings were up 7%) make Mr. Barry at least a little more honest than you (and dare say....smarter).

And it's not "my" poll...and despite its previously recognized unscientific nature, it does reveal that not everyone agrees with you on this subject. Heck, the fact that Parker, Heller (and one I can't recall the name) have all been brought forth are another indication not everyone in DC holds the same view as you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

100. Facts Indeed

The facts remain the same? You mean the ones you say are of an 'unscientific nature'.

Did you read the part about a long dip in murders ....... in gosh....... what the first paragraph.

Hhhmmm.

[HiDemGunOwner]

105. Hmmmm, no.

The fact that gun control advocate Marion Barry has acknowledged that only law abiding citizens are obeying the law, and that only criminals have gun. You know, the guns used to perpetrate crime against law abiding citizens. And, Oh gosh, did you read that your murder rate was up in 2007?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

107. Laughing Hard

You write: 'The fact that gun control advocate Marion Barry has acknowledged that only law abiding citizens are obeying the law, and that only criminals have gun. You know, the guns used to perpetrate crime against law abiding citizens. And, Oh gosh, did you read that your murder rate was up in 2007?'

LAW ABIDING CITIZENS?

MARION BARRY? Good thing Marion Barry was only convicted of a misdemeanor count of possessing cocaine. Otherwise he couldn't own the gun you say he needs. Of course, he was charged with three felonies and 10 counts of misdemeanor drug possession and one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine. Oh and then there is the charge of driving under the influence, operating a vehicle while impaired, driving an unregistered vehicle, and misuse of temporary tags.

And you want think he should have a gun.

But alas, I digress, Barry signed the original bill and has had 30 years to change his mind not to mention his life. There's a reason he is no longer Mayor and more importantly, why he represents the Ward with the most drug crimes in the city.

And, oh gosh, did you read the part about how much of the murder rate involves drug sales? You know, the drugs and guns used to perpetrate crime against law abiding citizens.

Right.

[HiDemGunOwner]

110. Obviously you care not for facts;

I never said Marion Barry wanted a gun himself, I simply reported on his statements that he supported a temporary lifting on DC's gun ban, in part saying only the law abiding citizens obeyed the law, and hence only criminals had guns. I thought I was pretty clear about that but you seem to have misunderstood.

And yes, I read the part about the drugs and the associated crimes...pretty standard, even outside DC. But I see no real relevance to the current argument. We KNOW the criminals have guns. That's what were talking about. Depriving law abiding citizens with a legitimate concern for their safety, (you know, all those gun-totting, druggies) being denied the tools necessary for their defense in their own homes, while not changing the ability of criminals to get guns. And please, don't try to say DC residents are afforded guns for home defense...your tired arguments about allowing long-guns (albeit disassembled and inoperable) is just that: tired. So save yourself some energy, no rational individual is going to buy it here, anymore than they did earlier.

Here's another quote, as reported in the Washington Post, from Barry: "What we are doing today will not take one gun out of the hands of one criminal." Any questions?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

111. Fewer Guns

The solution to gun violence is not more guns, but fewer.

Any questions?

[HiDemGunOwner]

114. Opinions are not facts.

Please cite any references you might have. Especially any references that the CDC did not have the opportunity to consider when it said there was no evidence that gun control laws affected gun crime.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

116. And Yet You Site Opinions as Fact

It's an opinion not unlike yours and Marion Barry.

You write: 'The fact that gun control advocate Marion Barry has acknowledged that only law abiding citizens are obeying the law, and that only criminals have gun. You know, the guns used to perpetrate crime against law abiding citizens. And, Oh gosh, did you read that your murder rate was up in 2007?"

That's an opinion whose credibility speaks for itself.

[HiDemGunOwner]

117. At least you recognize that your "less guns" theory is an opinion

and not fact. And, I might add, an opinion that runs counter to the facts. So, thanks for setting us straight on that. I wouldn't want anyone to be confuse what you say with actual facts.

And by the way, since you seem to be in a giving mood, maybe you could point out where I expressed my opinion and not verifiable facts. Just thought I would ask....

And one more thing. I wasn't going to mention this, but with your continued arrogance, which I suppose is an attempt to maintain your facade of intelluctual superiority, I felt it prudent to point out your incorrect vocabulary:

Cite:
mention: make reference to; "His name was mentioned in connection with the invention"
mention: commend; "he was cited for his outstanding achievements"
reference: refer to; "he referenced his colleagues' work"
quote: repeat a passage from; "He quoted the Bible to her"
quote: refer to for illustration or proof; "He said he could quote several instances of this behavior"
adduce: advance evidence for
citation: a short note recognizing a source of information or of a quoted passage; "the student's essay failed to list several important citations"; "the acknowledgments are usually printed at the front of a book"; "the article includes mention of similar clinical cases"
summon: call in an official matter, such as to attend court
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Site:
A location on the Internet, such as a Web site. Do not confuse with cite.
lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/healthsci/vocab.html

[fightthegoodfightnow]

121. Was That an Acknowledgement

that your statement starting with "The fact is.... ' was an opinion and not a fact too?

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gorfle]

134. The words of Marion Barry

The words of Marion Barry are an opinion. Regardless of his sordid past, it is interesting and relevant that such a government official would admit that the gun laws are ineffective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Nonetheless, it is an opinion.

The fact that the CDC has found no evidence to say that gun control laws reduce crime is just that - a fact, and refutes your assertion that "The solution to gun violence is not more guns, but fewer".

There is no evidence to support your claim.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

136. Nonsense

You write: 'The fact that the CDC has found no evidence to say that gun control laws reduce crime is just that - a fact, and refutes your assertion that "The solution to gun violence is not more guns, but fewer".

The CDC ---as in the Center for Disease Control ? As in a having a gun is now a disease?

The fact is gun jurisdiction doesn't fall under the CDC.

[gorfle]

140. Be sure to let the CDC know...

The CDC ---as in the Center for Disease Control ? As in a having a gun is now a disease?

The fact is gun jurisdiction doesn't fall under the CDC.

Whether you think it is or not, the CDC considers firerarm injuries and deaths a public health issue, and in the name of that issue they conducted an extensive, federally-funded study on the effects of gun control laws on firearm violence.

They found no scientific evidence that gun control laws have an impact on firearm violence.

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r031002.htm

[fightthegoodfightnow]

142. Reality

No need to look at the link.

I can look out on my street.

[gorfle]

146. I think they call that...

No need to look at the link.

I can look out on my street.

...burying one's head in the sand.

Honestly. It's like a 5-year-old covering their ears and yelling, "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

You have been virtually buried in factual, historical, and scientific data in this debate and you never have any of your own to contribute to back up your side of the debate.

I mean it would be one thing if you at least made a citation that didn't stand up to scrutiny. But you don't bother to cite anything. You just keep pulling stuff out of your butt.

I'd give up but it is so important, and so easy, to show the world how invalid your side of the debate is.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

147. More Reality

I and the people of the District of Columbia respectfully disagree.

We know our city. You don't.

[gorfle]

149. You may disagree all you like,

But you can't enact laws contrary to the U.S. Constitution. Your city, like my city, and every other city in America, is bound by that document. The question as to whether your city's laws do that or not will soon be answered, with Heller. I can't wait.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

150. That Has Yet to Be Determined

DC is not like your city. You have the right to govern your own lives and you have representation and a voice in your own federal government. We do not. Your representative had a vote in who is on that court: we do not. That's just a fact.

[gorfle]

151. It is also a fact that...

DC is not like your city. You have the right to govern your own lives and you have representation and a voice in your own federal government. We do not. Your representative had a vote in who is on that court: we do not. That's just a fact.

It is also a fact that the Constitution still fully applies in Washington, D.C.

Besides. There's nothing you can do about it, so I guess you'll just have to shut up and take it. It's not like you have the means to revolt or anything. I guess you'll just have to do as you're told. LOL.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

153. Nothing I Can Do About It?

Leave it to you to suggest I should accept TYRANNY and not having representation in my own government while you laugh and expect me to accept your claim that your rights are being denied. Your contempt for democracy is noted.

[gorfle]

156. Nah...

Leave it to you to suggest I should accept TYRANNY

I'm not saying you should accept it. I'm saying you have no choice as you have given up the means to resist. I mean if the people of D.C. are as anti-gun as you claim they are it's not like they will be picking up their muskets and marching on the Capitol or anything.

Your contempt for democracy is noted.

Make no mistake, it's not contempt for democracy...just contempt for people like you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

158. Ridiculous

You write: I'm saying you have no choice as you have given up the means to resist.

More garbage. How impotent you must think you are without a gun.

You write: 'Make no mistake, it's not contempt for democracy...just contempt for people like you.'

Got it....... personal insults (and having a gun) make you feel like a 'real man.'

And still you have nothing of merit to write about the substance of what I wrote.

You expect me to have respect for your Constitution and your rights when you demonstrate your arrogance and contempt for the half million Americans who have no voice in your Congress or the selection of your Court governing our lives.

[gorfle]

163. No...

More garbage. How impotent you must think you are without a gun.

Not impotent - vulnerable.

Got it....... personal insults (and having a gun) make you feel like a 'real man.'

Actually, destroying invalid arguments from people like you makes me feel like a real man. Or at least an intellectually and morally upright one.

And still you have nothing of merit to write about the substance of what I wrote.

Well damn, FTGFN, as if you haven't been doing that FOR WEEKS. Who the hell are you to call the pot black?!?!? Talk about not having anything of substance to write - you're the poster child! In most of your posts you haven't even been able to muster a complete coherent paragraph - let alone actually provide any data to support your assertions.

You are rapidly loosing the deserving of replies of substance.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

164. Let's Just Stick to What You Did NOT Comment On

You expect me to have respect for your Constitution and your rights when you demonstrate your arrogance and contempt for the half million Americans who have no voice in your Congress or the selection of your Court governing our lives.

[gorfle]

166. Like I said:

You expect me to have respect for your Constitution and your rights when you demonstrate your arrogance and contempt for the half million Americans who have no voice in your Congress or the selection of your Court governing our lives.

Like I said, it's your Constitution, too. And soon, your laws will be made to comply with it. You and the rest of the half-million Americans being deprived of their Constitutionally enumerated rights.

I can't wait.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

168. Bug Off

The only interest you have in our lives or what you think are our rights (as defined by you and your constitution) is if when it involves your claim to some right being violated according to you.

Too bad you simply cannot say that not having a voice in your government is ............ bad.

You expect me to have respect for your rights being violated in a place you do not live when you have nothing but contempt for mine.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

169. Wouldn't Your Arguments Be More Convincing If You Simply Conceded that My Right to Vote

..... for a member of Congress should not be dependent on what I or anyone else thinks about guns.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

170. NOT My Government

I have no voice in what your laws, your Constitution or your Courts.

That's just an embarrassing fact you'll have to live with.............. as you whine about your rights being violated.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

171. It's Not Our Constitution

.......... if we cannot participate in how it is amended.

[gorfle]

165. Oh, and...

You expect me to have respect for your Constitution and your rights...

Yup, 'cause guess what? It's your Constitution, too. Like it or not.

I really hope the Heller case gives you something to put in your pipe and smoke. I can't wait.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

159. Here's a Fact

You write: 'It is also a fact that the Constitution still fully applies in Washington, D.C."

The fact is we have no representation in your government or who is chosen to be on your courts making any claim you have that your rights regarding guns or anything else being violated sound as ........... absurd as your............. arrogance.

[bossy22]

120. fewer guns

in criminals hands are the solutino to gun violence. But like repubs, you dont care what the means are as long as sometime in the future your "ends" are met

[fightthegoodfightnow]

123. Give Me a Break

MORE GUNS in ANYONEs hands without regard to their criminal background is certainly NOT going to end gun violence.

Give me a break.

[HiDemGunOwner]

127. Again you're wrong...

Kennesaw, Georgia....lots more guns, a lot less crime....http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a75857671c.htm

[fightthegoodfightnow]

128. CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS

MORE GUNS in ANYONEs hands without regard to their *******criminal background************ is certainly NOT going to end gun violence.

[bossy22]

132. i meant to say arent

[fightthegoodfightnow]

112. FACT IS ..........

Some of those law abiding citizens you think should have guns are not law abiding.

[HiDemGunOwner]

115. Again, please cite your references in stating your "facts"

What exactly is your basis for making this claim?

Your rhetoric and baseless allegations of "fact" are growing tiresome and are clearly an indication of your lack of credible information.

[Tejas]

108. As usual, you have no proof whatsoever

"And for over two decades the people of the District of Columbia have weighed your arguments against those who think the quick and easy availability of guns have made our community less safe. If your arguments were as compelling as you think they are, then please do explain why the people of DC disagree with you."

As a sheep, you can't (much less would) do anything anyway, so your claims are empty as usual. You are happy with 30 years of high murder rates, your fellow citizens are not. Proof otherwise is more than welcome.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

125. My FELLOW Citizens

............. have supported elected city council members who have supported the law, elected mayors who support the law and have UNIVERSALLY rejected any referendum (not that there has been any) efforts to repeal the law.

The notion that I or ANY of my fellow citizens are happy about ANY violence in our community suggests that you don't know JACK SH*T about us or the community we live in.

You offer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO PROOF<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< that there is any broad appeal in DC to repeal the DC gun law.

None.

It's beyond your capacity to comprehend that it is precisely because guns are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO easily available among the criminal elements, who have you to do their bidding, that we are face with the consequences of your gun advocacy.

Before you speak for my 'fellow citizens', you might want to talk to some of them.

[HiDemGunOwner]

129. There does not need to be "broad appeal"

If there were broad appeal to limit your first amendment rights, would it be OK to do so?

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Ben Franklin
Liberty is the well armed lamb contesting the vote.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

138. As In Yelling Fire in a Theater when there is no Fire?

Or publishing national security secrets?
Or revoking the 'tax-exempt' of churches when their preachers give political endorsements?
Or restricting what children can read in a library?
Or restricting internet access with filters at public libraries?
Or putting restrictions on how many stations a TV or radio broadcaster can have in a market?

All of these are restrictions on the First Amendment.

There are hundreds of restrictions on the First Amendment. Neither the First or the Second Amendment are absolute.

[gorfle]

148. So the question then becomes...

There are hundreds of restrictions on the First Amendment. Neither the First or the Second Amendment are absolute.

So the question then becomes, when does a restriction violate the intent of the Constitution? Restrictions that are not seen to violate the intent of the Constitution stand, those that are seen to violate the intent of the Constitution are resisted.

Of course in order to have a meaningful discussion on such matters you have to come to a common agreement on the intent of the relevant parts of the Constitution. Something you have demonstrated the complete inability and unwillingness to do.

Most people would agree that the primary purpose of the 1st Amendment was to allow and encourage the free expression of dissent - in particular political dissent. Thus restrictions like not publishing national security secrets, separating church and state, and yelling fire in a theater have been allowed because it has been considered that these restrictions do not abridge the intention of the Constitution - in general they do not abridge the free expression of dissent. Restrictions on what material is available at libraries is frequently a subject of hot debate because it can be seen as restricting access to others' views of dissent, which is why such censorship is extremely carefully applied.

Most people (not you, of course) would likewise agree that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to establish a well-regulated militia able to secure the freedom of the States and The People, both from threats from without and within, including, in particular, a tyrannical federal government. Thus any restrictions on the 2nd Amendment must be considered in light of the impact they might have on that fundamental purpose.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

152. Is that What the Question Is?

Because I thought you asked a different question.

You write: 'Restrictions that are not seen to violate the intent of the Constitution stand."

Nah....... it's simpler than that............... Restrictions that are not seen to violate the Constitution stand.

Deal with it.

[HiDemGunOwner]

113. Because they choose to believe the MSM and not look at facts

You write: As it should be. And for over two decades the people of the District of Columbia have weighed your arguments against those who think the quick and easy availability of guns have made our community less safe. If your arguments were as compelling as you think they are, then please do explain why the people of DC disagree with you.

Fact: Despite a long-term gun-ban, Washington DC has some of the highest rates of gun crime in the nation during that time frame. And despite your claims of decreased numbers, the rate of murders are up in 2007.

Fact: The police are not obligated to protect you.

Fact: 911 is rarely able to stop a crime in progress

Fact: Defensive use of a firearm to thwart a crime occurs between 79,000 to 2.5 million times a year, depending on who's numbers you choose to believe.

States with liberalized gun laws, especially concealed carry laws, have the lowest crime rates

Those are just a few...there are plenty others. But, the argument isn't really about what some (even if it is the majority, as you claim) misguided folks want, regardless of any facts to the contrary. It's about allowing law abiding citizens the ability to exercise their right to keep a gun for defensive purposes. If others wish to not own guns, that's OK. But don't expect everyone to agree with you, or to expect them to stand silently by while your misguided efforts make it harder for the law abiding citizen to defend himself.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

126. Reality

Fact: Because of a long-term gun-ban, Washington DC has some of the lowest rates of gun crime for a major city during that time frame. And despite your claims otherwise, the rate of murders is below that of what it was when the law as enacted.

Fact: The DC police SUPPORT the DC gun ban.

Fact: 911 is rarely able to stop a crime in progress and neither is a gun!

Fact: Offensive use of a firearm to engage in a crime occurs between 79,000 to 2.5 million times a year, depending on who's numbers you choose to believe.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

101. That would be a relevent argument if this was 1790

But it's not.

By your logic, only the printed word is protected by the First Amendment. After all, censuring and restricting television, radio, and the Internet isn't stopping ALL of the freedom of the press, right?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

154. More Nonsense

According to you...... certainly not me.

[bossy22]

133. if you are

advocating restricing firearms that the 2A protects to pre 19th century guns, then you better limit the 1A to printing presses

[fightthegoodfightnow]

162. I'm Not

He is.

Read again.

[Xenotime]

94. Every pug will disagree with you that haveing a gun will make you safer.

[Plague]

69. I agree...

This crime was not a result of the firearm being in the home, but of a disturbed teenager with homicidal intent. I dare say that the firearm has just about nothing to do with the crime being committed.

After reading, it appears that the original poster was making an argument that a firearm stored in one's home will not protect one from someone who lives in said home, knows where the firearms are held and secretly plans to murder you with them. In this, I agree with them completely.

[Boomer 50]

106. The gun isn't to blame

Why didn't anyone see the danger signs the kid was showing? We had an incident near here where a family was murdered by their 14 year old daughter. She didn't have a gun, she burned the house down around her family. Why? Her parents wouldn't let her spend the night at a boys house. Apparently, she'd exibited signs of a problem for well over a year. But no, let's blame a gun instead of addressing the real problem.

I'll put it this way, blaming the gun for the actions of a person is like fixing a sucking chest wound with a band aid. It doesn't work.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

8. Favorable Statistic?

Leave it to you to consider them that.

I don't.

[east texas lib]

10. Your OP says otherwise...

It reveals the fact that you are using their deaths to advance your personal agenda.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

11. Do You Disagree?

Do you disagree with my statement that a gun doesn't always protect a family.

That's what I said.

if you disagree, I welcome hearing why.

What you characterize and marginalize as a 'personal agenda' doesn't address what I said.

[HiDemGunOwner]

13. So what's your point?

Are you suggesting that because of this tragedy we should enact more gun control laws?

But we've been thru this before - you are happy to use the instance of someone's death by gun violence as a reason to further restrict gun ownership. But, when presented with clear evidence that guns were used to protect someone from an act of violence, you are notably silent on using this as a justification to loosen gun restrictions. It seems to be a case of "If it saves just one life" it's OK to impose additional restrictions on law abiding citizens. But let someone claim that a firearm saved their life and see if you buy the "If it saves just one life" theory to allow for not enacting further restrictions on gun owners.

This website list instances where law abiding citizens used a firearm to protect themselves, either at home or in public.

http://claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Now, since we know citizens do use firearms to protect themselves, and do so frequently, I suppose you'll be jumping on the bandwagon for gun owners??

[fightthegoodfightnow]

23. You Tell Me?

You write: 'But we've been thru this before - you are happy to use the instance of someone's death by gun violence as a reason to further restrict gun ownership. '

Huh? Please do tell me where I wrote that on this board or in the original post. I'm not 'using' this story for any purposes other than to dispel the notion that having a gun in and of itself guarantees or insures that anyone's home is safer. Period. You said you agree with that.

You write: ' But, when presented with clear evidence that guns were used to protect someone from an act of violence, you are notably silent on using this as a justification to loosen gun restrictions.'

Actually, the only one notably silent on how this situation could have been avoided was you other than to accuse me of a 'personal agenda' of what......... educating people?

You write: 'But let someone claim that a firearm saved their life and see if you buy the "If it saves just one life" theory to allow for not enacting further restrictions on gun owners. '

Of course a firearm can save a life. Good grief. But having one in and of itself will not save anything without properly knowing how to use, how to store, and when to use. I think most gun owners understand that, but if you want to let your personal animosity with my 'personal agenda' interfere with your intellect, then so be it. I'm sure there are links that have testimonies from family members who have been killed by guns.

You started your post by writing: ' Are you suggesting that because of this tragedy we should enact more gun control laws?'

You tell me.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiDemGunOwner]

56. OK...last thing first.

No! This instance does not necessitate additional laws that would further restrict legal gun owners.

As far you using this as a means to promote your "personal agenda" I would have to disagree with you. Based on this, and many of the other posts I have read from you, it is clear you are not interested in "educating people" as you claim. Instead you shout(figuratively speaking, of course - remember all the CAPS you used) out your positions based on isolated instances or singular events and then berate others who take a position other than your own. As many of the other posters have already noted (and I don't recall a single instance in any other post I have read in my admittedly short time here at DU) nobody seems to be taking the position that mere possession of a firearm will make or keep you safe from all harm. That's your inaccurate spin, not any real position presented here.

To address any alleged silence on my part, I was not commenting on factors that I thought may have prevented this tragedy nor was I asked my opinion. I was however asking you about your post and your feelings about the need for additional legislation. (Which to date I see you have avoided answering) You on the other hand, in another forum, conveniently declined to answer a very similar question about the "even if it saves one life" issue by initially replying caustically that gun registration/waiting periods never caused harm to anyone and when presented information to the contrary, simple withdrew from that conversation. I know, I asked you the question. Care to comment on the apparent dichotomy of your position on the issue now? Second chance....

And finally, it is good to see that you can at least admit that firearms have the potential to save a life. From this and other postings, it was, at least to me, somewhat unclear about your position. In regards to any personal animosity toward you, I have none. I find your obtuse answers and chronic spin somewhat irritating and counter-productive to any intelligent debate on the various subjects discussed here, but I have no hostility toward you. And even if I did harbor some measure of animosity toward you, it wouldn't affect my "intellect" as I have been tested by far more irritating (and proximate) people than you and haven't had a problem so far.

Animosity:
a feeling of ill will arousing active hostility
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[east texas lib]

14. I do not disagree with the fact ...

That an unsecured weapon may be used against the very people it is supposed to protect.
I do, however, take issue with your statement that ( "the friends of the family will tell
you...") because I read the article per your link and I saw no such statement made by
anyone, be it friends or neighbors. And I do believe that in most jurisdictions that
providing a minor with access to a firearm is illegal. Which is why I secure mine
any time I'm not wearing it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

21. Great......

......... but it doesn't change what I said that just having a gun doesn't make a family or home safer.

As you said, it has to be secured. It has to have a trained user and perhaps be located in a room that can be quickly accessed if needed.

If you took offense to me attributing to their friends words or sentiments they do not share, fine, but no one is going to tell me that having a gun protected that family from anything. It got them kllled and the friends of that family can certainly attest to that fact.

[east texas lib]

22. Well...

It doesn't make that paticular statement TRUE now, does it?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

24. Well...........

Let me repeat: 'If you took offense to me attributing to their friends words or sentiments they do not share, fine, but no one is going to tell me that having a gun protected that family from anything. It got them kllled and the friends of that family can certainly attest to that fact.'

Perhaps if you were more concerned about how this situation could have been avoided than with the notion their friends disagree with me, you might actually do some good. You prove me wrong that their friends might side with me more than you.

[east texas lib]

33. Translation-

I put words in their mouth that they did not say. I got caught. And now I'm spinning to hide
that fact.

[bossy22]

15. and a seat belt

doesnt always save your life in a car accident. In fact i can recall an accident i responded to in which a seat belt caused massive internal injuries and the accident was that bad.

Your point is....

[fightthegoodfightnow]

28. WOW

.........talked about being at a tad bit defensive.

You can find my point in the Subject Line of the Original Message.

Assuming there is some relevance to your comparison of a car safety feature, do you have to register a car, be a certain age to drive or have a license to drive?

[bossy22]

42. i still dont get your point of your post

you pick an event that shows when a homeowners gun is used against him by his family and then make the blanket statement a gun doesnt always protect you. first off all you are true that a gun doesnt always protect you...just like a seatbelt doesnt always protect you. We all know that.

a gun in the home as a defense tool can be considered a safety measure much like a seatbelt

also you do not have to register nor have a drivers license to drive a car. You only need to do these things if you mean to take it up public roads. My cousin is 12 and drives a pickup all around his father's farm upstate. The truck does not have a license plate nor is it registered.

you are dillusional if you think we think that a gun is an invincible safety shield

[fightthegoodfightnow]

54. Safety Feature

You write: 'you pick an event that shows when a homeowners gun is used against him by his family and then make the blanket statement a gun doesnt always protect you. first off all you are true that a gun doesnt always protect you...just like a seatbelt doesnt always protect you. We all know that.'

Good. As you know, I did not make a comparison to a car safety feature. You did. And I challenged it's relevancy at the time. You are delusional if you did not read that.

I have no problem with a car not working without a seatbelt engaged not unlike a gun not working if a fingerprint of the owner doesn't match the gun programming.

The technology is there.

[bossy22]

64. it is there

but it is unreliable- hell the police wont even take it because of its failings- and alot of police officers get shot with their own gun. So until the police take it, i wont.

[bossy22]

44. actually i get your point

and for that i will say this THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS.....next week will you be telling us that we breathe oxygen, or how about that we are made up of carbon......

[gorfle]

48. Like a car...

Assuming there is some relevance to your comparison of a car safety feature, do you have to register a car, be a certain age to drive or have a license to drive?

I'd love for cars to be treated just like guns.

1) No waiting period to buy one
2) No registration required to use one on private property
3) No paperwork required to buy one to use on private property
4) No age requirement to use one on private property.

You're right, FTGFN! Guns should be treated just like cars.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

53. Wishful Thinking on Your Part

Actually, as you know, the comparison to a car safety feature was made by the poster (not me) and the relevancy was challenged by me.

I have no problem with a gun safety FEATURE on a gun that would require a fingerprint by the owner to operate not unlike a car not starting without a seat belt engaged.

[bossy22]

57. ohh those safety devices

that are 90% effective- meaning they work 9 out of 10 times.....i will accept that feature when the police accept it. and my post was very relevant, you just choose not to believe it was. Your OP shows that you are dillusional or just like getting reactions out of us

[gorfle]

58. Don't change the subject.

Actually, as you know, the comparison to a car safety feature was made by the poster (not me) and the relevancy was challenged by me.

Yes, I caught that. And then you decided to go off on a tangent and say:

...do you have to register a car, be a certain age to drive or have a license to drive?

The implication, of course, that guns should be the same way.

And I agree with you - that would be great. I wish firearm ownership was as hassle-free as car ownership.

I have no problem with a gun safety FEATURE on a gun that would require a fingerprint by the owner to operate not unlike a car not starting without a seat belt engaged.

I've never seen a car that did not start without the seat belt engaged. That said, I have no problem with such features, either, provided they are optional, or can be switched off if necessary.

[ManiacJoe]

17. Having a gun is not the problem.

Improper storage of this gun allowed unauthorized hands to get to it. The child then purposely killed his family using the gun.

If you are going to own firearms, or other dangerous tools, they need to be properly stored for the safety of you and everyone else.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

29. DISAGREE: Having a Gun COULD Be a Problem

You write: 'Having a gun is not the problem.'

Disgree with your choice of words: Having a Gun COULD Be a Problem is more accurate, particularly if it is not, as you say, properly stored.

[ManiacJoe]

34. A better choice of words, yet:

If you are looking for semantics, the phrase you are looking for is, "Having a gun can LEAD to problems if you are not careful."

Possession and storage are related but separate issues. Legal possession is not a problem by itself. Improper storage is the problem. One solution to the storage problem is to remove the gun(s) from possession since you cannot and need not store what you don't have. However, there are many other options for safe storage.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

55. Okay

Works for me.

[gorfle]

18. The tools of liberty and defense are indeed dangerous

The tools of liberty and defense are indeed dangerous if misused.

This does not mean we should get rid of the tools of liberty and defense.

[east texas lib]

19. You are indeed correct...

And as long as the cozy little cabal of cretinous constitutionally challenged cohorts is out
there working to strip ordinary people of the RKBA, I or others(who by the way are much
better at this than I am!) will be there to meet them.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

25. Liberty?

Laughing very hard.

We have taxation without representation making any claim to liberty sound like a bad remake of George Orwell's 1984 that desperately needs to be updated.

Guns have done nothing to secure or defend liberty in DC.

[mvccd1000]

39. Of course not...

You're not allowed to have them!

(Kidding.... that thought crept in totally uninvited when I read your post.) :)

[gorfle]

41. So what?

Laughing very hard.

I would recommend more hard thinking and less hard laughing.

We have taxation without representation making any claim to liberty sound like a bad remake of George Orwell's 1984 that desperately needs to be updated.

Then the population of DC needs to do something about it.

Guns have done nothing to secure or defend liberty in DC.

That is because not enough citizens of DC have decided that it is necessary to employ them in order to have a government that they are satisfied with, and there has of yet, thankfully, been insufficient support for armed revolt.

In any case, guns alone are insufficient to withstand tyranny. Guns cannot overcome apathy.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

52. Let Me Help Educate You

You write: 'Then the population of DC needs to do something about it."

The people of the District of Columbia have held a Constitutional Convention to write our state constitution and seek entry as a State in the US. The name of our proposed state is "New Columbia". The convention was held in DC in the 80s and approved by the voters. We have requested statehood every year since making your post ........... amusing to read since you don't really know what we have done.

[gorfle]

60. Whatever you are doing isn't working...

You write: 'Then the population of DC needs to do something about it."

The people of the District of Columbia have held a Constitutional Convention to write our state constitution and seek entry as a State in the US. The name of our proposed state is "New Columbia". The convention was held in DC in the 80s and approved by the voters. We have requested statehood every year since making your post ........... amusing to read since you don't really know what we have done.

You're right, I don't have any clue about the efforts of the citizens of DC seeking statehood.

Whatever you're doing isn't working.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

68. New Columbia

That's true.

I hope you will consider writing your member of Congress and Senator.

I would also hope those who consider their rights being violated on this board regarding one issue (guns) would have some basic appreciation for how not having the right to vote or representation in your government has an impact on EVERY issue in our lives.

[dairydog91]

26. What's your point?

A gun isn't some sort of magic talisman that one buys in order to project mystical protective energy around one's home, a gun is a weapon. Used properly, it can stop an intruder. Used by a nutjob, it can be used to cause great harm. One should always store weapons securely in order to prevent unauthorized people from accessing them.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

27. Thanks for Making My Point

Glad you got it.

[ac2007]

32. No one argues that a gun is a magic talisman

The issue here wasn't protection so if that is what you are arguing, you are wrong.

The issue is safe storage. The firearm was not secured properly against unsupervised access by a minor. Guess what? This is a crime in the state of Maryland (as it is in Virginia to the south). A gun control law passed with the purpose of preventing such tragedies.

So how did that work out?

This has nothing to do with safety but responsibility. His parents were irresponsible for failing to do so in accordance with state law and paid the ultimate price. Protection doesn't even figure into this so much as a dysfunctional family gone horribly awry.

In any free society there will always be a certain amount of unforeseen and uncontrollable tragedy such as this. Who's to blame? Not the gun.

Not sure the point you are trying to make here.

[Ready4Change]

35. No, a gun does not always protect a family.

I can admit this. The facts support it. Family members have been killed by their own weapons.

Now, can YOU admit that a families gun sometimes DOES protect that family?

[Ready4Change]

65. Hmm, I guess you can't.

Pity. Facts don't only count when they support one side of a disagreement.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

81. Hummmmmmm

........... I have.

[Ready4Change]

118. If so, my apologies.

But I've not read that in this thread.

I have read that you maintain that the citizens of DC do not want to legalize ownership of firearms. For the most part, elections and public actions in DC, as viewed from my suburban Maryland home, supports what you say.

But my experience makes me think the citizens of DC are misinformed about the outcomes of their position. I've been to sections of 'gun free' DC where my only thought was to get out as soon as possible.

Places where a Subway sandwich shop had inch thick bullet proof glass between the employees and customers, with a rotating airlock that allowed money and food to be passed back and forth.

Places where a good friend of mine was mugged, and nearly mugged often enough that she and her husband moved away and now put up with hour long commutes. (THey used to live in NY before moving here, BTW.)

Places where a panhandler 'recommended' that I use my ATM card to get him the money he wanted. (Public space, so I was able to back away from him and whatever he had in his pocket.)

I strongly resist going into DC anymore. It is NOT free of guns. It is a free place for criminals to use guns, without fear of citizens resisting. A town of prey and wolves.

DC needs to face the fact that it's gun restrictions have failed.

Only this one suburbanites opinion.

[scrinmaster]

36. If he killed them all in their sleep

He could have just as easily used a knife/axe/club/hammer/any sort of blunt or sharp object.

In a case like this, is there anything the family could have done to protect themselves? Locking the doors wouldn't have helped, having an alarm wouldn't have helped, having a cell phone next to the bed with 911 on speed dial wouldn't have helped.

[OlderButWiser]

47. And...

...having a gun didn't help. :(

[fightthegoodfightnow]

82. Simple

...... properly storing and restricting the accessibility of that gun.

[krispos42]

37. corollary: not having a gun doesn't always save your family

Translation:

Something doesn't work 100% of the time, and at the same time something doesn't work 0% of the time, either.

Further translation:

Something works between 0 and 100% of the time.




And this fact is post-worthy... why?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

84. Simple ...........Again

The notion that a gun in and of itself makes someone safer is ridiculous.

Glad you agree with that 100%.

[mvccd1000]

38. Nor does a baseball bat...

Or whatever this teen used to beat his parents to death this week.

http://www.pr-inside.com/us-couple-beaten-to-death-by-r420894.htm

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5grYBoV_wZL_dLeoEFRnPhIFDmy9gD8UITGAO1

What other objects would you like to see removed from homes?

[Tejas]

40. Some antis would be tickled to death

if the walls from everyone else's houses were removed and replaced with glass so the government could "protect" subjects that much easier.


"What other objects would you like to see removed from homes?"

[fightthegoodfightnow]

85. I'll Leave You to Once Again Argue the Ridiculous

......... because that's what your argument is ....... ridiculous.

If and when you think your government...... that institution accountable to you and your fellow voting citizens (certainly not us living in DC) ........... forces you to have glass walls to make you safer, you let me know.

Until then, you just give weight to the reasoning for restricting who owns a gun to the mentally competent.

[Tejas]

109. quit punishing yourself n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

167. Yessum Master

.....You expect me to have respect for your Constitution and your rights when you demonstrate your arrogance and contempt for the half million Americans who have no voice in your Congress or the selection of your Court governing our lives.

[jmg257]

43. Excellent point. A dangerous instrument is - well - dangerous. SOME people should NOT have access

to guns or ANY dangerous instruments; yet it is SOO hard for ME (or anyone else) to pass judgement to tell all others how to live - or how to defend themselves. And it is definitely NOT worth infringing on the secured & natural rights of everyone based on bad behavior of a few - no matter how reprehensible.

Many have other ideas as to what constitutes the "best defense" for their family - their situation may be different. That is why freedom & "choice" are such good ideas! And why such freedoms are secured - to protect them from the whimiscial/tyrannical opinions of others - even a majority.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

87. I'm Glad We Agree

A GUN DOESN'T ALWAYS PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

[Indy Lurker]

59. You are correct

and sometimes space heaters catch houses on fire, but most of the time it does not.


"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

Cesare Beccaria

[spoony]

62. I think the crazy 15 year old would be the problem in that equation.

In other words, they wouldn't have exactly been safe if the gun wasn't there, would they now? If a killer is living with you and has 24/7 access to you, I think that's the more pressing issue.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

88. No..........

............you're right................... they would be alive because the gun would not have killed them.

Are you for real?

[lepus]

90. He killed them with a gun

In the absence of a gun he would likely killed them with something else.

In any case, I doubt if the family would be alive right now even in the absence of a gun.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

98. He Killed Them with a Gun

............that much is true.

As for the rest of your post, you assume and doubt as much as you want.

[krispos42]

104. The problem with this line of reasoning...

is that we KNOW who was killed with a gun. We have names, dates, locations, numbers, details, etc.



We have no clue who is living now that wouldn't be otherwise. We can't say, for example, Joe Anybody of Cleveland is alive today because in 1998 a budding burglar got scared off by an armed homeowner and decided to stick to ripping off car stereos instead. Because the budding burglar got the shit scared out of him by some guy in boxers pointing a shotgun at him, he never made a career out of burglary and never broke into Joe Somebody's house, got surprised by Joe coming home early, and killed him in a struggle.



All I know is that banning guns doesn't eliminate the motive to commit crimes, nor the means to do so.

[HiDemGunOwner]

183. Or maybe hired someone to kill for him...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308403,00.html

[benEzra]

91. You're assuming that if he didn't have access to a gun,

he would not have attempted to murder them at all, and they'd be alive. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. In hindsight, the gun should have been accessible only to the parents, definitely, but that doesn't necessarily mean the murders wouldn't have occurred.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/53880

Five in US family stabbed to death
Aug 21, 2001 11:04 AM

A 27-year-old California man allegedly stabbed his wife to death and then drove to another home where he killed four other family members - an elderly couple, a nine-year-old girl, and a young boy found dead on the front porch, police said.

Police gathered outside the modest duplex apartment in the Sacramento suburb described a scene of carnage inside, apparently sparked by a family feud in a quiet immigrant community.

"We have a total of five victims, one suspect responsible for all five," Sacramento County Sheriff's Department spokesman James Lewis told reporters.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-124403544.html

Police: Three in California family stabbed to death, baby left to die

Dateline: GARDEN GROVE, California
Police revealed Wednesday that three family members found dead in their home had been stabbed, and that detectives did not have any suspects in one of the city's "most horrific" crimes.

Investigators identified the victims as Phuong Hung Le, 30, and his wife, Trish Dawn Lam, 25. Lam's 6-year-old son, Tommy, also was killed. He was earlier reported to be 7.

There was another one a couple weeks ago posted here on DU, but I couldn't find it. Multiple-victim homicides are rare, and multiple-victim intrafamily homicides are exceedingly rare, given that we live in a nation of 300 million people; only media sensationalizing makes them seem common (violence sells, and fear sells, unfortunately). There's apparently something in the American psyche that wants parents afraid of being murdered by their kids, kids by their parents, etc. even though statistically those fears are almost completely ungrounded.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

97. More Nonsense

I not assuming anything.

The fact is he had the gun and he used it.

[benEzra]

102. You're assuming this:

I not assuming anything.

You're assuming this (from your earlier post):

they would be alive because the gun would not have killed them.

You are indeed assuming that absent the gun, the guy would have decided not to commit the murders. Because taking away the gun wouldn't have taken away the means to kill, given that he had unfettered access to other, non-firearm weapons and full access to the occupants of the house while they were sleeping.

That said, keeping the gun where a highly troubled 15-year-old could access it wasn't a good choice in this case.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

157. What Part is Not True

The fact is he had the gun and he used it.

[Tejas]

103. Thank you for proving everyone's point

You're the type that thinks Charles Manson could/would only kill you in your sleep if there was a gun in the house.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

122. Thanks for Proving My Point

............. not only do you not know what you are talking about, but you have no idea what I think regarding guns or anything else.

[gorfle]

135. Oh, I don't think so....

not only do you not know what you are talking about, but you have no idea what I think regarding guns or anything else.

Oh, I think your postings here in this forum have given us great insight into your thinking.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

137. Fact IS ..........

You write: 'You're the type that thinks Charles Manson could/would only kill you in your sleep if there was a gun in the house."

Nonsense. The FACT is you have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, I'm truly embarrassed for you.

[SecularNATION]

139. fightthewrongfightnow, I'd wager there are few people here...

...who care whom or what you are embarrassed by or for.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

144. Gosh........

........ ok.

I guess some have to make it personal when they can't stick to the issue.

Speaks more about you than .......... guns or me.

[gorfle]

141. I'm embarassed for you, too....

You can't even quote the right person in your replies. Talk about having no idea what you are talking about...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

143. Oh Golly

I apologize making me bigger than you.

[Spoonman]

119. And drinking a six pack doesn't always result in a DWI

I fail to see a valid point to your post.

This reminds me of one my favorite statements:
"Guns" kill people like "spoons" make people fat!

[pipoman]

145. Funny I was just thinking the same thing when I saw the thread title again

A GUN DOESN'T ALWAYS PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

Duhhhh,

A fire extinguisher DOESN'T ALWAYS PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

A seatbelt DOESN'T ALWAYS PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

The police DOESN'T ALWAYS PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

A guard dog DOESN'T ALWAYS PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

An alarm system DOESN'T ALWAYS PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

A storm shelter DOESN'T ALWAYS PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

A CO detector DOESN'T ALWAYS PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

etc ---------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to infinity and beyond!

As usual this thread is just a way to get to DC not having representation and 300 "have not/have too" posts on a thread.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

160. GOOD POINT

....... a Gun doesn't always protect you.

Glad we agree.

[Spoonman]

172. You are right,

and there are times when it will.

But I doubt you'll admit to that!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

175. DOUBT ALL YOU WANT........

......... I agree with your post.

Of course a gun can protect you!!!!

But weigh that against the potential for someone to take the law into their own hands, to have poor judgement, to be impaired by sex, drugs, or alcohol, to have the potential to own a gun inspite of their criminal background or mental health, along with a host of other considerations and it's just............ not a risk worth having.

As I've mentioned, I've been held up a gun point and my boss/friend was killed because he took out a gun and tried to prevent his assailant from robbing a business he didn't even own........ all over a few thousands of dollars. Was it worth it? Not in my opinion.

[Spoonman]

177. impaired by sex?

But weigh that against the potential for someone to take the law into their own hands, to have poor judgement, to be impaired by sex, drugs, or alcohol,

I can't even begin to respond to that, it's just so far fetched I can't write anything nice.

There's only one "gun" I'm thinking about shooting during sex, you want to ban it too? :rofl:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

178. You Mean You Have Never Heard of a Lover's Spat .....

...... resulting in a violent crime involving a gun?

I have no doubt that some gun advocates over compensate for their concealed pistol size.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

161. WOW........

....... no .............. this board is about guns, but it disappointing to hear you so easily dismiss people not having representation in their own government.

Pathetic.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

155. Oh Good Grief

Comparing a spoon to a gun is just silly.

Go shoot ........ whoops...... spoon ...........yourself.

[Spoonman]

173. GOOD POINT

The we agree, guns don't commit crimes, people do.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

174. NONSENSE.........

............. unless you agree with me that guns kill people.

[Spoonman]

176. Common Sense

Which appears to be in short supply here.

A gun can be used to kill people, animals, cans, paper, clay pigeons, watermelons, oranges...............

Knives, cars, ladders, cigarettes, alcohol, disease, baseball bats, hammers, electricity, screw drivers, pipes, poisons and stupidity kill people too.

By your logic, we should be prosecuting "the gun" and not the person that pulled the trigger.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

179. Common Sense Doesn't Equate a Gun with a

........ a cigarette.

[MAS 49_56]

182. I think you're missing the big picture here....

... Guns do not equate to saving your life all by itself any more then a seatbelt does. However, if you combine either owning a car or a gun with safe handling, and a few other precautionary methods (like a trigger lock or "Gun Vault" http://www.nationwidesafes.com/1380.html?gclid=CJGCtI-3zpECFQ8nawodPx3-3w in this instance, driving safely in the case of car ownership) then guns can be a part of the equation, and an important one at that.

Keep in mind no one is asking you, or anyone else to be comfy with gun ownership. If you do not like them, then simply do not own them.

[Retired AF Dem]

184. A GUN DOESN'T ALWAYS PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

This is true. Every cop that has been killed in the line of duty had a gun. You can do everything right and still get killed.