Are people who support gun ownership callous toward human suffering/death?

[bryant69]

Poll question: Are people who support gun ownership callous toward human suffering/death?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ThomWV]

1. We share our nation's bewilderment and pain, but still insist on our Constitutional Rights.

It does not make us bad people, it does not make us lawless minions. We are Americans, given the right at birth to arm and defend ourselves, and we hold that right dear.

[Matariki]

2. This is such flamebait - you forgot that voting option n/t

[bryant69]

4. I thought that was covered under option 5 n/t

[smoogatz]

3. IMO, the mass-shooting phenomenon is now officially out of hand.

It's time to stop arming crazy people, and it's time for responsible gun owners and the industry to step forward in full support of that effort. Frankly, I don't see that happening, largely because it threatens the industry's bottom line. Gun owners' rights really don't have that much to do with the industry-led resistance to common-sense national regulation.

[Dimensio0]

14. Please elaborate.

Please state what you believe is "common-sence national regulation" and explain, exactly, why you believe that your proposal would be "common sense".

[smoogatz]

21. I'd be fine with a well regulated militia

as required by the second amendment. What we have now are heavily armed individuals, largely unregulated, about 10% of whom are seriously mentally ill. Too many guns in the hands of too many crazy people. You tell me—what's the best way to keep guns away from homicidal nut-cases?

[Dimensio0]

23. You did not address my inquiry.

Perhaps I was ambiguous in my wording.

I would like to know what specific "common sense" regulations you would propose.

I will note that I do not see a requirement in the Second Amendment for a "well regulated militia". I see only a reference to a "well regulated militia" as an offered explanation as to why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

I will admit that I do not know of any foolproof method for preventing "homicidal nut-cases" from obtaining firearms, nor, for that matter, do I know of any foolproof method to prevent such "nut-cases" from obtaining any potentially dangerous implements.

[smoogatz]

26. Well, since you don't have any solutions

maybe we could start by limiting the sale of handguns and other guns specifically designed to kill large numbers of humans to those who can prove that they're fit to own them. Deep background check, safety course, licensing and registration, for a start. What responsible gun owner would object?

As for the second amendment, spare me the sophistry. Here's what it says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." We all know the historical context: the nascent U.S. couldn't afford a standing army, so it relied on militias to defend against invasion/incursion. It couldn't afford to arm those militias, so an armed populace ready to rush to the defense of the nation in organized militias was a necessity: disarm the people and you disarm the state. This is obviously no longer the case: we now have a large standing army. We also have a heavily armed populace without effective regulation, which was clearly not the founders' intent.

[Jack_DeLeon]

104. The kind that would object...

is the kind that does not trust the intentions of those in charge of this process.

The right to keep and bear arms is important. Chances are I might never have to use my gun to defend myself or those I care about from criminals, but that is one of the reasons I am a gun owner.

Hypothetically its possible that I may need to use my gun to protect the people I care about, that is a very important matter, why should I trust or give the government any control over that process. My family is very important to me, why should I give someone the chance to veto my defending them when I dont have to right now.

The government makes mistakes, and sometimes people in power act in criminal or negligent ways. Who is to say that my "papers" wont get lost or delayed, thus increasing the hypothetical risk to my family. Or even worse, what if someone with a bias had me denied for whatever reason, maybe they didnt like my skin color, my religion, my sexuality, or even my politics. Yes its likely could all be sorted out eventually but in the meantime I'm not able to effectively protect my family should the worst happen. The worst is not very likely to happen but the pain I would feel if it did would be tremendous, which is why I would not voluntarily choose to allow others to decide how I protect those I care about.

[wolfgangmo]

135. Ooooooooo. Criminals....

.... scary.



A bit of a straw man argument if ever I heard one.

[Jack_DeLeon]

137. Fine...

its your choice if you want to put the safety of yourself and those you care about in the hands of strangers.

I choose to bear that responsibility myself, and I want the government to have no say in that matter.

[CTyankee]

140. Yeah, the man who killed my neice was law abiding and had a gun to protect

his home. That was really important to him. Funny thing was, he had a drinking problem. And one night he got drunk and started shooting, killed my neice instantly and wounded her mother and grandmother (his wife) then he killed himself. My neice was 24 years old and a newlywed. The pallbearers at her funeral had been ushers at her wedding 4 months earlier...

[jmg257]

49. Does say "a well regulated Militia" IS necessary. What better militia then 1 well-armed & trained?

It HAS to be effective - our freedoms depend on it.

[beevul]

30. The Second Amendment...

Yours is another "interpretation" of the second amendment that is...something other than what the framers instructed it to be read as.

Oh, I didn't explain. The framers actually left instructions HOW the bill of rights were to be interpreted. Yes. They really did.

Here they are - the preamble to the bill of rights:


"The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

www.BILLOFRIGHTS.ORG

Note that it says "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added", and understand that governments have powers, and people have rights, and note that the restrictive clauses are aimed at powers not rights.

The bill of rights is a LIST OF RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENTAL POWER. NOT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.


One can not argue the "well regulated militia" interpretation, when reading it as the restriction on governmental power that it was intended to be.


When reading the second amendment and interpreting it "in line" with the preamble, it simply can not be read to restrict the rights of the people.



Sorry.

[smoogatz]

31. Nice try.

But you're ignoring the historical context (see my post above). Your response also begs the question: if they didn't mean the part about militias, why is it in there in the first place? Why not just go with the second clause?

[beevul]

42. Noted...

It is noted that you have not refuted anything I posted. I am ignoring nothing. I am well aware of historical context, however i needn't cherry pick or misconstrue it.

"Your response also begs the question: if they didn't mean the part about militias, why is it in there in the first place? Why not just go with the second clause?"

Its called a justificatory clause. It tells the reader why the framers thought it important to affirm the rights of the people by placing the non-infringement restriction of the second amendment on governmental power.

Like I said...the "militia" interpretation does not hold to scrutiny when read as the framers suggest - as a restriction on governmental power. That holds doubly true when you factor in that the framers, in thier writings as much as said that this right as well as many others existed before there was a "united states" government, and that the bill of rights merely protects these right rather than grants them.

Sorry.


You said:

"I'd be fine with a well regulated militia as required by the second amendment."

You are wrong about the the militia being "required by the second amendment". You have been shown you are wrong. Given ample evidence of how to read the amendment, as intended by the framers. They left it right there in the preamble of bill of rights for all to see. Just own it and be done with it already.

[smoogatz]

45. Sorry.

I understand your reading, but I still don't think it means what you think it means. My reading is that the amendment, taken as a whole, is conditional and pragmatic. Take away the necessity of a self-arming citizen militia, and the argument for unregulated gun ownership disappears. Nor does the average household arsenal act anymore as a deterrent to tyranny: the government reserves the biggest and best guns for itself. There's also the question of responsibility: the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" effect. Has more-or-less unregulated traffic in guns resulted in a net loss of freedom in this country, or a net gain? Depends which end of the gun you're looking at, doesn't it?

[jmg257]

48. IF the only reason for securing the right to arms was the Militia, you would be good, but

the framers considered the rights to self-defense (and the means), property, etc. as natural and unalienable too.

While the Militia IS a primary reason for securing the right, it is definitely not the only one.

I do think the Militia clauses lend considerable weght as to why the right to arms has a broader security then just against the feds, and without that tie the right COULD BE be more subject to regulations by the states. But the amendment does secure an individual right and should at the least be given the same level of scrutiny/protection as others - if it where w/o the militia purpose; with it there are very few intrusions that should be allowed...Our role in the Militia is just too important (And yes - thanks to the 2nd and the original militia clauses, the people's Militia of the several States IS "necessary" and is required.)


Penalties for "shouting fire" are not infringements on your right to free speech, they are consequences of the misuse of that right. Same with using a gun to murder - rightly so it is illegal. Cutting out my tongue because I MAY shout fire is unconstitutional, banning guns because I MAY use one to commit murder is too.

[beevul]

50. The thing is...

The thing is, I said:

"When reading the second amendment and interpreting it "in line" with the preamble, it simply can not be read to restrict the rights of the people."


In saying "My reading is that the amendment, taken as a whole, is conditional and pragmatic... Take away the necessity of a self-arming citizen militia, and the argument for unregulated gun ownership disappears..." you are admitting quite clearly that you do NOT read it as a restriction on governmental power, in spite of the Bill Of Rights explicitly stating that THAT is exactly what it is.


Can you explain that? How do you reconcile such a position with the stark crystal clear purpose, and function of, the bill of rights?


"There's also the question of responsibility: the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" effect."

Indeed, however in the country we don't gag people before they enter a theater to pr3event the abuse of speech. We punish people after the fact. Would you suggest otherwise?


"Take away the necessity of a self-arming citizen militia, and the argument for unregulated gun ownership disappears."

No one that I am aware of is arguing for "unregulated" gun ownership. Not even that evil old NRA. Quite a straw fella there.

Finally, we live in a society where all things are allowed unless and until prohibited. The onus falls on those wishing to do the restricting/regulating/prohibiting to justify it. If you wish to regulate the private ownership of firearms beyond the point that it is already, the onus is on you to describe how and why it needs be done, and what doing it will accomplish...which would include all sorts of less than fun stuff such as explaining why the same measures you're likely to propose have failed in the past to the point that further restrictions need to happen, and why those same measures "wont fail this time". And of course should they become law, you will need to most likely pass constitutional muster under whats called "strict scrutiny", because people really just aren't inclined to give up thier privately owned property because of a few bad apples without a legal battle. DC vs Heller may tell that tale.

[Maine-ah]

39. maybe dealing with our national

health care crisis, instead of making all of us who are law abiding citizens give up our guns, would be a good place to start.

[smoogatz]

46. Because then the NIU survivors wouldn't have to worry

about their post-amputation hospital bills? That would solve everything!

[Xenotime]

57. * will take care of them!!

:sarcasm:

[smoogatz]

70. The sanctimonious son of a bitch offered up his prayers, he did.

But you know, life is unfair.

[Irreverend IX]

60. Do you know what the militia is?

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

According to US law, it consists of all able-bodied males ages 17-45. A modern interpretation of the law would probably extend militia status to women as well. The militia is not a standing army or national guard (which was created more than 100 years after the Bill of Rights was written), it is the entire people. And in the parlance of the 18th century, "well-regulated" means well-trained and organized. Federalist writings contrast well-regulated militias that can effectively fight and defend territory to poorly equipped fighting forces that cannot.

Also, the post-Revolution US did not go without a standing army for lack of funds. The founders were vehemently opposed to standing armies, since they are and have always been tools of oppression, and intended for the US to be defended by citizen soldiers who supplied their own arms, kind of like what Switzerland does now.

[grantcart]

109. well if your going to actually read the constitution you are going to take all the fun out of it.

[Brigid]

All I know is . . .

these horrible crimes are being committed. And they are being committed with guns -- not knives, or swords, or baseball bats, or whatever. That makes guns part of the problem. I should think that responsible gun owners would be very concerned, but for some the answer seems to be: more guns. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Mojorabbit]

24. The problem is

the human condition. In England stabbings are rising and they still have some shooting homicides even with their ban on guns. What needs to be done is to identify and help people who are having problems dealing with life cope. It is an enormous problem and you will never be able to stop everyone who would do so from committing a crime. Humans have been hurting other humans from the beginning of time. Banning guns would only be a feel good measure just as banning drugs is a feel good measure.

[Brigid]

29. But you have to admit . . .

that you can do a lot more damage a lot more quickly with a gun -- any gun -- than you can with the aforementioned knife, or sword or baseball bat, or whatever. That's what makes guns more dangerous. And like anything dangerous, they should be treated with extreme caution. If that means laws to keep them out of the hands of those with a history of violence and/or mental instability, then so be it as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps, though, better enforcement of existing laws should be tried first. I'm sure that would at least help.

[Maine-ah]

41. you can make bombs out of household products.

it's not the guns, it's the people using them.

[smoogatz]

47. Guns are easy. No learning curve, minimal planning. Load up and go.

Bombs require care and expertise to manufacture, transport and detonate. Full-blown sociopaths may use bombs now and then, but garden variety psychotics seem to prefer semi-auto firearms. If they could buy full-auto machine guns, of course, I'm sure they'd prefer them.

[Dimensio0]

53. Your statement is not correct.

An individual with little or no training in the usage of a firearm will not be as effective as an individual who has had extensive training in the use of a firearm. It is highly unlikely that an individual with no firearms experience will be as accurate as a practiced professional. Additionally, with some firearms, a lack of understanding of their function can result in personal injury. For example, someone wholly unfamiliar with semi-automatic handguns may inadvertently place their thumb in the path of the slide when pulling the trigger, which can result in serious injury.

[smoogatz]

68. Oh, come on.

The guy who shot up NIU had no problem killing and wounding a large number of people. It doesn't take training or experience to do what he did. Just about any idiot on the planet can learn how to load and fire a shotgun or handgun in maybe five minutes. If you can point it and shoot it, you can kill people at close range—especially in a crowd.

[Dimensio0]

72. Your initial statement declared that there is no learning curve.

Your initial statement was not correct. Unless you are aware of the extent of firearms training that the shooter posessed, you cannot reasonably comment on his position on a "learning curve". Additionally, it is quite likely that an individual with more experience in handling firearms may have been able to cause more death. Note that the police found six shotgun shells and over forty spent handgun shell casing at the scene, resulting in a death toll of seven people besides the shooter.

[smoogatz]

75. This may be the dumbest argument on this subject yet.

Have you ever fired a gun? Did you find it intellectually or physically challenging in some way? If so, I'm a little bit worried for you. Witnesses said the guy fired from the hip into a crowd of seated students, from a range of maybe 10-20 feet. For all I know, he had his eyes closed. If you fire into a crowd with a shotgun, you're going to fucking kill somebody. Give me a freakin' break.

[Dimensio0]

76. I have fired a gun.

The process of learning to properly handle the gun was intellectually stimulating, though not necessarily challenging. There was, in fact, a learning curve in training myself to properly aim the firearm, up to sighting in a target and even through pulling the trigger so that I would not inadvertently pull the barrel off-target while pulling the trigger. Additionally, I experienced a discomfort in my arm from the repeated recoil of the firearm following my first session with one. Even now, when target shooting, I have experiecened discomfort in my finger after extensive shooting that can affect my performance.

I did not deny that an inexperienced shooter can be lethal. What I have been attempting to state is that a more experienced shooter is likely to have sufficient training and ability to fire more accurate, and thus more lethal, shots, which may result in a higher death toll.

[sendero]

132. Yes ....

.. and a lot more people are killed by cars and we COULD do without them, but we're not going to.

Guns are here. Like the income tax, whether they are strictly constitutional is 100% moot, they are here and they are not going away.

[flor de jasmim]

5. How can people be simultaneously pro-gun and pro-life?

[ThomWV]

9. just as easily as being pro automated bowling machine equipment and pro life.

One is a machine, the other is a political issue. Being in favor of one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

[Junkdrawer]

25. BEWARE THE PIN SETTERS....

I KNEW those things were designed to kill....

[Ghost in the Machine]

118. How can people be simultaneously pro-abortion and anti-death penalty?

:popcorn:

[-..__...]

6. Are people who support gun control blowhards?

[billyoc]

8. Every last one of them.

btw, I am *so* having kalashnikitty as my sig after the primaries are over... :hi:

[-..__...]

20. Kalashnikitty is the embodiment of evil.

Another DU'er once told me that... and the person was serious. :smoke:

How's this for a fashion statement...

[ThomWV]

10. By definition the "Blowhards" are the ones who are on the losing side - the anti gun nuts.

Because in case you haven't noticed the blowhard anti gun nuts haven't taken away our 2nd Amendment right yet. The mark of a blowhard, lots of noise but no effective action. Anti gun nut = Blowhard.

[jmg257]

7. No, we hate it! We hate it SO much WE are willing to take direct responsibility to try to limit it.

We especially abhore the deaths of innocents, including those closest to us.

Luckily most don't take that responsibility lightly, and so are not callous to the safety of others either.

[murray hill farm]

11. I own a handgun.

My home has been broken into twice and an additional attempt when I was home late at night and a man tried to kick in my door. He would have eventually succeeded, but he ran when I set off the alarm system from the inside. After that I bought the gun...and i do not like guns. But, i would shoot an intruder without a second thought. Am i callous? Perhaps! But I am very happy that I can own a gun to protect myself.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Some, yes. Some, no.

Gun owners are not a monolithic block. Some are very black and white in their thinking; others recognise the difference between a person's right to defend himself and a person's right to own a MAC-10. Some refuse to recognise that guns flooding the inner cities is both the cause and response to guns flooding the inner cities, and the only ones to befefit from it are the gun manufacturers. Others refuse to recognise that "In Cold Blood" scenarios do happen, where an isolated family could be murdered at leisure because the nearest police are 20 miles away.

It's not guns that is the problem - it's hardened black and white attitudes about guns that is the problem.

[Bright Eyes]

13. Some.

Most are nice people.

Some are jerks who care only about themselves and their guns.

[pitohui]

15. perhaps they are concerned w. defending aga. their own suffering and death

like it or not, if everyone is known to be without a gun, then you become easy prey

example, the two ph.d. students at lsu killed in student housing in a very bad neighborhood -- it was known that the students were not allowed to have guns in the housing units -- and all the bad guys on the street had guns -- so these two students were completely helpless and without recourse when the armed robberies came, stole, and shot them dead

some good people MUST have guns, if only the bad guys have weapons, then they have nothing at risk and nothing to lose if they prey on us every single day, there needs to be at least some awareness that the worm can turn and that sometimes a bad guy instead of a good guy will die -- hence the cheers that go up when some 70 year old robbery victim turns and shoots the armed robber dead

by the way, the killers of the two students have not been found, and i doubt they ever will be at this point, some 2-3 months later

maybe people without fear don't need guns, but in this society, people without fear may be people who just don't have a very good grip on reality and the need for protecting oneself and family, adults know their own neighborhood best and need to be able to make their own decisions in my view

does taking guns out of the hands of responsible adults do anything to stop nutcases from gunning other people down? it's unclear how this could be true

[MadHound]

16. No, I support gun ownership, and I'm not callous at all.

Which is one reason why I also support sane, safe and adequate gun control measures.

[Junkdrawer]

17. The gun addicts among them, like most addicts, are self-centered...

and incapable of considering the needs of others.

[bryant69]

18. Ah - Addictions can be terrible. Some people get addicted to self satisfaction, I've noticed

But what percentage of those who support gun ownership fit under this description?

Bryant

[Junkdrawer]

19. Well, about 10% of drinkers are alcoholics...

May be more...may be less...

[BoneDaddy]

34. Gun addicts?

Wow, you are extreme. I don't own a gun but by your illogicity, you condemn everyone who owns a gun as incapable of considering the needs of others.

Time to grow up and into the real world.

[Junkdrawer]

37. Push words in other people's mouth much?

"Some gun owners are addicts" <> "everyone who owns a gun is incapable of considering the needs of others."

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. We loves us our push-polls. I suggest; "Why do gun-grabbers hate constitutional rights?"

It's no less hyperbolic.

After living through the last 8 years of civil liberties free-fall, I've lost what zeal I once had for gun control. The 2nd amendment freaks had a point.

[Neo-wobbly]

27. Misunderstood issue

I think a lot of people, especially in other parts of the country (I'm in the South), don't understand why this is such an issue here; apparently, in most parts of the country, if you call the police, they show up and do something to help you. This is absolutely NOT the case throughout most of the South, where the police are slow to respond, and rarely involve themselves unless a business is involved (robbery, disorderly conduct, etc.); personal disputes are generally left to work themselves out, all too often violently, and the person without a gun usually loses. I have been fortunate enough to have never have this happen to me (although it's been close a few times), but I have had friends and family involved in gun crimes, where the victim is as likely to be prosecuted as the criminal!

I neither support nor oppose gun ownership: I view it as a personal decision. I support registration, mandatory training, and an outright ban on handguns, but I oppose bans on rifles, even assault rifles. People forget that the 2nd amendment was put into the bill of rights for a reason, and that's because you cannot count on the government to be either effective or just.

[El Pinko]

28. I'm very much in favor of handgun bans, but find this poll disgusting.

The people who disagree for me do so because they have a different take on things. I understand it. I disagree with it but I understand it.

I would never call them basically sociopaths because of that.

[bryant69]

35. I should note at this point that I am in favor of legal gun ownership

although I don't own any myself.

I posted this in response to several posts the last few days that read "Well Guns killed more people, I hope you gun owners are happy!" more or less.

Bryant

[havocmom]

107. New poll idea: how many gun grabbers own cars?

Since they like to take cheap shots (pardon the phrase, it's late and I am too tired to think of an alternative) at gun owners, I REALLY want to know how many of them are care owners.

Wanna talk threats to life? Get real. Hard to ignore the private ownership of automobiles. Besides the accident rate, think of the wars for oil to run the damned things! How can anyone be pro-auto and pro-life? ;)

Thanks for the poll. Interesting. And I am only half kidding with my suggestion for a new one. I have just about had it with the hypocrisy of those who want to disarm everyone, thinking that will make things fine. There are laws against murder. More laws about guns will be observed to about the same extent the ones regarding murder get obeyed. Some people are just not gonna play by the rules.

Those of us in small rural areas of the northwest know law enforcement can't be here to save us from someone/something set on harming us. We can only count on what peace we can maintain in our own proximity.

And I am tired of losing elections due to the gun argument. How many lives lost due to GOP policies when more DEMs may have been elected save this one stupid recurring topic? The losses due to bad policies and unnecessary wars are NOT the fault of 'gun nuts' so much as those rabidly opposed to gun ownership losing us elections.

Sorry for the rant, but rounding up the guns mantra just means more GOP policies and THAT is not good for living things!

[dysfunctional press]

32. or are people who support gun confiscation just a bunch of pussies?

:shrug:

[BoneDaddy]

33. Thank the Gods that most of the pollsters are rational

and not showing the total ignorance of history, life and the complexity of the gun issue instead of some milquetoast, child like fantasy about their irrational beliefs.

[bryant69]

38. Why, thank you. n/t

[BoneDaddy]

52. most welcome

:)

[Sanctified]

36. Are people who support the legalization of alcohol callous toward human suffering/death?

I would argue alcohol kills more people in this country every year than guns yet it's still perfectly legal to drink in this country.

[Alexander]

40. Nope. They are concerned about their rights.

The key is to find a balance between the two so additional deaths can be prevented.

[RedStateShame]

43. A right is a right is a right.

And that right was intended for a form of self-defense should the citizens deem their government doing more harm than good to them. Not that such a situation would ever happen...

[benEzra]

44. Are people who oppose the Patriot Act callous toward human suffering/death?

How about people who support the right to responsibly consume alcohol and oppose alcohol prohibition? Alcohol killed 273 people yesterday, but it didn't make the news.

The "if you don't support my position, you are a bad person" argument is an old one (and usually a repub one), but crops up a lot in debates over lawful gun ownership.


----------------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[porphyrian]

51. Correlation is not necessarily causation. -n/t

[penguin7]

54. People that own guns are far more likely to have their fool brains blown out

than those with sense enough to stay away from guns.

[Dimensio0]

55. Please justify your assertion. (n/t)

[penguin7]

58. The Evidence is overwhelming

Here is one link:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gunrisks/riskinhome/

[Junkdrawer]

59. stop quoting the Journal of Trauma....they are clearly just gun grabbers...

:sarcasm:

[jmg257]

61. Let's see..789 die from gun accidents, 17,000 gun suicides, 65 MILLION gun owners

Even including all the 12,000 gun-related homicides nationwide, which don't exactly consitutute victims "having their fool brains blown out" from their own guns - it doesn't seem very "overwhelming" at all. Not when there are 15,600 NON-gun suicides, 6,000 NON gun homicides, and 900,000 NON-gun violent crimes every year.

That is why you don't rely on biased websites to try to make a point - they are ususally wrong or slanted a certain way (as in the Brady bunch you linked to).

Better yet - you should not rely on statistics AT ALL when discussing fundamentals like basic rights. Too often they may not agree with you.

[Dimensio0]

63. The reference that you have cited itself cites a known flawed study.

The Brady Center quotes statistics from Arthur Kellermann, however Kellermann's analysis method is known to be deeply flawed and his conclusions are not credible. For example, he considers any firearm brought into a home for any reason as a firearm in the home. Using such a methodology, a firearm that a home intruder brings into a house that is used to murder an occupant is considered a "gun in the home" that was used to kill one of the occupants. Clearly, this is not a valid means of analysis; a more appropriate analysis would consider only guns owned by one of the occupants of the home.

Kellermann also compares accidental deaths to justified homicides committed in self-defense. This is not a valid comparison. Kellermann -- and, in citing him, the Brady Center -- is attempting to equate defensive homicide with defensive gun use. However, many incidents of successful self-defense involving a firearm do not result in the death of the aggressor. Often times, the sight of the firearm itself is sufficient to deter an aggressor. An honest analysis would compare accidental firearms deaths and injuries with successful incidents of self-defense involving a firearm whether or not the gun was even discharged.

Kellermann's sample sizes were also monolithic. Kellermann restricted his analysis to urban areas, ignoring suburban areas and rural areas. If there is a difference in risks involved with firearms ownership across different demographics, a study following appropriate methodology would detect this. Kellermann's study, however, cannot be used to draw conclusions across demographics.

I would recommend using references with fewer known flaws in their methodology. Kellermann's studies are known to be flawed.

I feel that I should also note that firearms injuries in the home, regardless of the statistics on the subject, are the fault of the owners of the firearms who fail to take appropriate safety measures. The appropriate response when their negligence results in injury or death is to hold them accountable for their inaction. It is not appropriate for the government to pre-emptively assume that all adults are incapable of responsible firearms ownership. The number of gun owners who have not experienced a firearms-related "accident" in their home is sufficient to demonstrate that such an assumption is inaccurate.

[apocalypsehow]

69. Please justify your assertion(s) in this post. I see not a single linked substantiation in this

morass of unsupported opinions you've posted here.

Geese, ganders, and all that.

[Dimensio0]

74. That Kellermann only counted self-defense that resulted in the death of the aggressor is fact.

It is not opinion to note that Kellermann only noted acts of self-defense where the aggressor was killed. If you believe that I am mistaken, then it should be trivial for you to point out in his study where he included an analysis of defensive firearms usage that did not result in a death.

A number of criticisms of Kellermann's study can be found here.

[penguin7]

105. The Kellerman study is standard and established.

There have been several studies which corroborate the results. There is no study which contradicts it.

[Dimensio0]

138. That does not change the inherent flaw in the analysis.

It is not valid to only consider incidents in which an aggressor is killed when evaluating acts of self-defense with a firearm.

Please cite some of the "several studies" that corroborate the results.

[Paladin]

56. The Gun Obsessives Here At DU Are Overwhelmingly Callous

In order to maintain their fanatical belief in virtually unrestricted gun ownership, they logically have to regard slaughters like the one at NIU as a fair and acceptable trade-off. It doesn't get much more callous than that.....

[Dimensio0]

62. Please justify your assertion.

Please provide specific references in support of your allegation. Also explain why you believe that gun ownership is "virtually unrestricted".

[apocalypsehow]

64. Pretty much, yes. They are right in line with the folks who proclaimed

back in the sixties that they personally didn't support segregation, *BUT*, (the silly, immoral argument always went) "people have a right to serve who they want in their private businesses, don't they?!?" To which the decent answer was: "NO".

Indeed, the segregation-supporters were at least on firmer constitutional footing than the pro-gun "Democrats" I see posting around here: at least private property *IS* mentioned in the Constitution somewhere, whereas the "right" to own a Glock - or any other firearm - is referenced only in the context of being a member of a "militia," i.e., an enlisted or commissioned officer of the National Guard. The pro-gun "Democrats" (I use the term loosely and ironically) and their fellow travelers in the GOP and NRA of 2008 are the moral equivalent of the "private-property trumps human decency" segregationists of the 1960's, and deserve the equivalent scorn of decent people in general and progressives in particular these days - particularly as one witnesses the ongoing carnage in our schools, in our neighborhoods, and throughout our society.

There is no Constitutional "right" to own a firearm in the United States, period. It is high time we brought our national laws in line with the rest of the civilized world, and a good place to start would be the banning of handguns, assault rifles, and any semi-automatic firearm that is capable of firing more than five shots without reloading. The next decent step would be to outlaw all but single-shot rifled weapons, and shotguns.

One seems to hear much brave talk from the pro-gunners about ignoring and/or flouting such gun bans were they ever passed, talk which belies their rhetoric about being "law-abiding". Like Lestor Maddox in front of his restaurant, they seem to talk a "law-abiding" game right up until the moment a law that they don't like gets passed. I say we call their bluffs, pass the sensible gun-restriction laws like Canada and Europe have, and get started down the road toward ending the senseless carnage of firearms violence in our society.

[jmg257]

66. So when did the 2nd amendment get repealed? The 9th? the 10th? Did the rest of us miss all that?

And what section in the constitution gives congress the power to regulate arms? We all missed that too. I know there is something in there about coming up with guidlines as to what arms we will provide ourselves for Militia duty, but other then that?

And the arms you are spouting off about banning are exactly those specifically secured by the militia clauses and the 2nd amendment - as it is precisely those firearms which are "military arms in common use" (plus M16s, M4s. M9s and such) - and so in keeping with the Militia's role, the 2nd's militia observation, the people's right to keep and bear them, and the USSC.

Let us know when you ARE done with repealing the 2nd, 9th & 10th amendments, AND giving congress the necessary powers and getting your unconstitutional laws passed - then we can all decide if we will agree to this new social contract of yours.

[apocalypsehow]

77. Want to play around with your precious little manhood-enhancers? Man, I've got good news for you!

The active-duty Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps are hiring right now!!! So is, I do believe, the Coast Guard. If, for some reason, you don't care to join those professional organizations and see the world (particularly Iraq or Afghanistan), I've got equally good news: your local National Guard, which is what the Second Amendment is really all about, is no doubt hiring, too.

Want to fiddle around with guns? Give those outfit's recruiters a call. They'll be happy to accommodate you, and that way you can satisfy those longing to handle guns in the way the Founders meant you to, drilling on the parade green in the July heat and December sleet. Have fun!

[jmg257]

79. Awww, how cute - a penis reference! Moving on - let's see...the Militia of the several States..

"suppress insurrections, repel invasions, execute the laws". Nope - nothing in there about serving overseas. Nothing about being part of the standing army, or the reserves of the standing army. (Well regulated is a good idea however - a little training & range time is always fun. Shooting M4s and M249s with the 101st was a blast!)

Let me know when the hostiles invade though - I will gladly be there - especially if I am allowed to provide myself with the really effective arms the constitution says are necessary...no sense being out-gunned in such important roles.

[Dimensio0]

81. I am curious.

Why have you associated firearms with "manhood".

I have observed that a disproportionate percentage of individuals who oppose legal firearms ownership have equated firearms with male genitalia. I am unable to understand the connection between the two. Do you know why many who are in favor of increased regulations on firearms tend to equate firearms with male sexual organs? Such a connection does not seem to be rational.

[jmg257]

82. I do see his point though. While my penis is rather large, it can't shoot a 62gr FMj at 3000fps

Hmmm...but then I have to wonder if female gun-owners possess "vagina enhancers"? "women-hood enhancers"?

You are right though, there IS something peculiar about people who equate guns with dicks - not the right person to go to the range with, I bet!

[apocalypsehow]

85. And a little homophobia to boot! You pro-gun "Democrats" are quite the riot, alright

And there is something "peculiar" about it all, to be sure, but it mostly has to do with poseurs on a progressive website...

[jmg257]

87. Not a fear of homosexuals, fear of those who equate guns with dicks - such as yourself. But then I

am not really afraid of you specifically, you are more amusing then anything. I AM worried how easy it is for some to willingly infringe on the rights of others...THAT really is something to fear.

[apocalypsehow]

97. Oh, it's homophobia alright, no matter how you wish to slice it

but I've long noted one thing about homophobes: they project their closeted desires in ways that are quite predictable, and pathological. I have little reason to doubt that this is the case here.

[jmg257]

98. Oh, so you are phsychologist too? Tell me - how does your equating guns with penises make you feel?

[apocalypsehow]

101. Your eager employment of the word "penis" - repeatedly and at every opportunity - is a sure sign

of a mind that dwells constantly on the subject, and is seemingly tormented by it. Trust me though, my friend, nothing will be held against you here, at DU, for those feelings as long as they are not cloaked in half-hidden resentment and hostility: if you want to come out of the closet, I'm all for it. But your projection is problematic to those of us who don't fear and loathe our gay friends, family members, and neighbors, and who recognize the symptoms of self-loathing that can only lead to violent lashing-out.

By all means, feel free to be who you are without guilt and fear.

[jmg257]

103. I am glad you are all for it - my wife however may not agree so readily! OK GOT TO GO!>..

[CRF450]

110. Its the same stupid argument like from those who say....

"fast sports cars are for those who have tiny dicks". And as a high performance car owner, I find that argument down right offensive and ignorant:mad:

[friendly_iconoclast]

106. How can the Second Amendment be "really all about" the National Guard

... when the Guard wasn't formed until 1913? And what of the "unorganized militia"?
Do they get to keep and bear arms under apocalypsehow's new dispensation?

All that choler and righteous indignation makes for poor Constitutional scholarship.

[Dimensio0]

67. Please explain how your proposal would be accomplished.

There is no Constitutional "right" to own a firearm in the United States, period.

Please explain the meaning of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

It is high time we brought our national laws in line with the rest of the civilized world, and a good place to start would be the banning of handguns, assault rifles, and any semi-automatic firearm that is capable of firing more than five shots without reloading.

Please explain how you would implement a ban on all of the above types of firearms. Explain how you would enforce the confiscation of existing owned firearms, and explain how owners of these firearms would receive due compensation as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Moreover, explain why banning all of the above classes of firearms would be of benefit, with evidence for any claimed benefits.

Also explain why you advocate the banning of "assault rifles" given that such rifles are already tightly controlled by federal law, such that posession of such a firearm without federal permisson is a felony offense that will result in a mandatory ten-year prison sentence. Explain also why you would advocate banning assault rifles given that legally owned assault rifles have rarely been used in any crime.

[apocalypsehow]

71. I owe you no "explanations" - about anything.

But, trust me, just like those "Whites Only" signs came down despite all the caterwauling from folks who were your moral equivalents back in the sixties - with their constant talk of "states rights" and the rest - I guarantee you that the second a federal law outlawing handguns, assault rifles, and semi-automatic weapons such as I've described passed, the melt-down forges across the country would go into overdrive as "law-abiding" gun owners complied with the will of the democratically-elected majority. Those who refused to comply would be seen by history, like Lestor Maddox is to this day, as the last hateful dregs of reactionary ideology shrieking in retreat even as it was withering away. You're welcome to embrace such an ugly legacy if you wish, but most of us will pass.

[Dimensio0]

73. You have proposed a specific course of action.

It is not unreasonable to expect that you would be able to explain how your proposed action would be implemented.

Additionally, I do not believe that your comparison of legal firearms ownership with legalized racial segregation is a valid one. Moreover, you have not addressed the factual problems inherent in your suggestion that "assault rifles" be banned.

[apocalypsehow]

80. I have "proposed" general guidelines anchored to my specific opinions, not clause-for-clause

legislation. The logical fallacy you are caught up in indulging is called "special pleading," aka fake precision: it sometimes baffles the casual, ignorant observer, but not the educated. Please try again.

[jmg257]

78. I have a more realistic scenario - the second such unconstitutional laws are passed, it will dawn

on the idiots who passed it that there is NO way to enforce it without agents of the state going door to door, & shooting violaters on sight (& what a perfect example of tryanny THAT would be). While many such as yourself would applaud all the intrusions on our liberties such enforcment would bring, many many more WILL oppose it until the madness finally halts - after much blood-letting and ALOT of senseless deaths on both sides.

[apocalypsehow]

83. Ahhhh...you must be another one of those "law-abiding" gun owners I'm always hearing about,

what with your threats of "much blood-letting and ALOT of senseless deaths on both sides" at the mere mention of the possible passage of a series of laws you don't like. Good to know that arsenals of deadly weapons across the land are in such "reasonable" private hands as those of our representative sample of pro-gun "Democrats" who post here at DU, folks who promise "blood-letting" at the reasonable suggestion that their dangerous toys be more tightly regulated, and/or taken away....

[jmg257]

84. Not just "laws we don't like" - laws that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Try to keep up.

And please - I did not "threaten" anything. YOU posted a scenraio, and I posted a scenario. I think mine would be the more realistic, as there IS only so much tyranny the people will take, especially when it REALLY gets personal.

[apocalypsehow]

86. No such law restricting firearms would be "UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!" Do get yourself a law degree

Then, perhaps, you can "keep up" with what the Constitution, as currently interpreted, ACTUALLY SAYS.

[jmg257]

88. How about this instead. You READ the constitution. LEARN its intent. THEN we can have a discussion

on what regulations and such MIGHT be constitutional.

[apocalypsehow]

91. I can assure you I've forgotten more about the "intent" of the Law - Constitutional and otherwise -

than you will ever know. But you're right: this discussion is pointless. About like a conversation between an astronomer and a member of the flat-earth society, or a "creationist" and a biologist.

[jmg257]

92. I agree - you definitely forgot the parts about the intent of the 2nd amendment and the Militia.

Maybe a refresher course is in order? OR maybe new points from the anti-gunners? Even they have moved past all that "National Guard" BS and "collective right" theory/lies. Shit - they even admit now what the Miltia was, what "arms" are, who "the peole" are, and what "well regulated" means. Now if only they could see that "to keep and bear" really means just "to keep and bear" and is not some exclusive military-only term - all would be well.

But again - just READ the constitution - "shall not be infringed" is pretty damn clear.

[apocalypsehow]

94. "shall not be infringed" refers to people in the state militias, known in 2008 as

"The National Guard."

[jmg257]

95. Hmm.."the RIGHT of the people TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed" Quite clear

it is THE RIGHT that shall not be infringed, not "the people" - in the militias or otherwise. Damn! That is a new argument!

BTW, the National Guard is the "Militia of the UNITED STATES", NOT the "Militia of the several States."

And you said you know the law??? Or did you forget that too?

[apocalypsehow]

99. That may work in the pro-gun sewers you are accustomed to posting in

but here the USSC and its rulings hold. Again, one notes the semantic games, but never mind. The "militia" refers in 2008 to the National Guard, and has since at least the early twentieth century. You sound like those fanatics who rant that the Income Tax is "unconstitutional" right up until the moment they are sentenced to a Federal Penitentiary.

[jmg257]

100. Yep - so when Heller is decided we CAN stop all this bickering at last.

(Not likely... ;))

Semantics is NOT the issue - the Constitution AND its intent ARE. And yes, these days the Miltia does refer - sort of - to the National Guard, no matter how much of a usurption its creation was.

That STILL doesn't change the fact that the RIGHT - OF THE PEOPLE - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


OK - I have to go pick up the wife - cheers! It was very interesting discussing this with you!

:beer:

[apocalypsehow]

102. The same to you - interesting debate. Later.

[beevul]

111. Not that dishonest shit again....

This is about the 6th time I have had to correct someones ignorance regarding the bill of rights in the last few days.

I just love how varying interpretations of the second amendment such as yours seem to materialise out of thin air. How anyone that has one which is creative or novel and something other than what the framers instructed it to be read as can expect to be looked at as honest...is simply ludicrous.

Oh, I didn't explain. The framers actually left instructions HOW the bill of rights were to be interpreted. Yes. They really did.

Here they are - the preamble to the bill of rights:


"The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

www.BILLOFRIGHTS.ORG

Note that it says "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added", and understand that governments have powers, and people have rights, and note that the restrictive clauses are aimed at powers not rights.

The bill of rights is a LIST OF RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENTAL POWER. NOT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.


One can not argue the "well regulated militia" interpretation, when reading it as the restriction on governmental power that it was intended to be.


When reading the second amendment and interpreting it "in line" with the preamble, it simply can not be read to restrict the rights of the people.

Sorry.


You can claim otherwise, but you will just look foolish to anyone that understands the bill of rights and how it functions.

[apocalypsehow]

89. Allow me to quote your threat precisely: "much blood-letting and ALOT of senseless

deaths on both sides" you stated, if laws you and your trigger-happy friends in the pro-gun crowd didn't like were passed by the society you live in. That is the precise definition of a "threat," and all the pretending otherwise doesn't wash among those who can read plain English. Play that silly semantics game elsewhere, among those who don't know any better. But that was the textbook definition of a general (as opposed to a specific) "threat".

[jmg257]

90. Ok - you are right. I "threatened" there would be blood-letting. Predicted, threatened - whatever.

Lets hope they don't try it then, hey?

[apocalypsehow]

93. Allow me to quote you again: "Lets hope they don't try it then, hey?"

That sounds just like what they said in the Jim Crow South during the Civil Rights movement, and the era of the Freedom Riders. Funny, that, how you pro-gun "Democrats" and the historical hard-core segregationists of years long gone manage to somehow sound so alike in your violent rhetoric and demagogic threats...

[jmg257]

96. What isn't funny is how you anti-gun democrats sound SOO much like Bush using illusions of safety

as justification for infringing on unalienable rights.

What ISN't funny is how you fail to realize most restrictive gun laws in this country were started to keep the blacks in the south from carrying guns. Maybe you were all for that too? Civil rights include much more then sitting at the same counter and drinking from the same water fountain.

[friendly_iconoclast]

108. Someone here hasn't heard of the "Deacons For Defense and Justice"

or Rob Williams. African-Americans who were armed, vocal and defended people of color
against the Klan. Still want to tell us that only the oppressors were armed during
the Civil Rights era?

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

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/1999w42/msg00022.htm

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/index.html

There's even a movie on DVD to be had:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335034


Did you also know that more restrictive gun control laws in California were passed in response to the rather conspicuous "open carry" habits of the Black Panthers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=140548

or:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=134977#137827
(esp. reply #54)

Now explain to us again why you have been conflating support of gun ownership with
segregationists.

[derby378]

141. "No right to own a gun" = "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"

I'm sure you know how the rest of that story goes.

[AlCzervik]

65. i think this is probably your worst poll ever, congratulations on a new personal best.

[margotb822]

112. selfish

and ignorant. Honestly, who needs a gun these days? Someone who wants to kill another person!

[spoony]

113. So the police "want to kill"? Security guards, too?

The notions that people hold about each other are just stunning. You really, truly believe that anyone who buys a gun "wants to kill another person"? And if so, why haven't they (we) all?

[CRF450]

114. This anti-gun crap has gotta stop.

Its a debate thats never going to be won by the anti-gun people no matter what type of argument they try to bring up. And it is clearly shown in the poll that the majority are for legal gun ownership, because their is alot of crazy fucks out their who are capable of taking your life away in no time. I'd much rather use a gun to take control of the situation, and make it very clear to the perp that he/she is not going to threaten my life.

The vast majority of gun owners are people who in no way are eager to spill blood, they are people who choose to own a gun, becuase they like to go hunting, live in a sketchy neighborhood where crime rate is high, live out in the country where it can take 5-10 mintues for police to arrive, or simply as a hobby for gun collection and target shooting.

I myself do not own a hand gun yet, but I will soon as I live out in the country by myself with the closesed neighbors a quarter of a mile away from my house. I dont care much about guns and would rather stay away from them, but I'm not going to let myself get into a situation where my life is SOL. The only gun I own right now is a couple paintball guns, but I'd rather use the real thing if some nut tried to break into my house.

[spoony]

115. I wouldn't mind so much if their arguments made any sense

and didn't try to paint everyone with a gun in their house as bloodthirsty mass-murderers-in-waiting.

btw, on the bright side the cops could easily identify an intruder with your paintballs splattered all over him :P

[CRF450]

122. Till the intruder changes clothes and the bruises heal up.

Funny but true stroy. A guy running a paintball store had just closed up the store for the day, and it was about 30 minutes after closing time that someone tried breaking into the store. The guy working their was busy in the back rebuilding and cleaning his own paintball gun when he heard the store's front window shatter. He got up and ran to the front where saw a guy climbing through the window, and he picked a loaded paintball gun that was sitting on the floor just on the outside corner of the short hallway to the back, behind the front counter. He said he fuckin lit that dude up just while he dropped on the floor, proceeded to get back up and climbed through the window again, but twice as fast while paintballs were nailing him in the ass LOL!

[margotb822]

116. Well then

why do YOU need a gun?

Food? Nope.
Shelter? Nope.
Protection? Not unless you are a Crypt, Blood, or Sporano.

So, tell me, why would the average American need a gun.

Maybe they want to kill people at a public education institution, because that seems to be their most recent use!

[spoony]

117. Don't know that I do.

Just as you don't know if you'll need a first aid kit. My gun sits in a locked box screwed to inside of a drawer. I'm not, to my knowledge, a crip, blood, p-stone ranger, hell's angel, or any other gang member. And, unless you're going to make the case that only gang-bangers have their houses broken into, I don't think I have to be.

Again you say "maybe they want to kill people." Surely you have more sense than that and you're speaking in hyperbole, right? If the average American wanted to buy a gun for the purpose of murder, there'd hardly be anyone left.

[margotb822]

120. 12x

That the amount that a gun-owner is more likely to die by gunshot in their own home than a non-gun owner.

And don't give me this "self protection" BS. Get ADT and a baseball bat, that'll keep you just as safe.

There is not reason to own a gun except "what if." Well, IF people didn't have guns, you wouldn't need to keep one locked up in your house.

And tell me, how quickly can you unlock and load your gun? Fast enough to defeat an intruder?

THERE IS NO RATIONAL REASON TO OWN A GUN!

You don't need to hunt or protect yourself from 'injuns.'

[spoony]

121. You're growing ever more erratic in your responses

For one thing, the gun is loaded in the strongbox. It is unlocked by my fingertips, in about three seconds. Second, unless some Stephen King shit happens where inanimate objects gain consciousness, that thing isn't killing me. Third, saying "if people didn't have guns" is just ridiculous. They do. End of story. If ifs and buts and all that, eh?

[margotb822]

123. You still haven't answered the question

Why do YOU need a gun? Loaded or not. Locked or not. Why is it essential to you?

[spoony]

127. I have answered: I don't know if I need it.

God willing I'll never know, because the situation where it would be needed will hopefully never arise. However I ENJOY being free to CHOOSE to have this tool at my disposal in the event of dire circumstances. I also appreciate others having that freedom.

[margotb822]

130. The freedom to kill others?

There are other methods of protection. You don't always have to reach for the most extreme. And, let's be honest. you have no real proof or evidence that you are personally in a position where you would need to be in a gun fight.

That is the problem, people always reach for the most extreme solution, instead of the logical solution.

You have still not proven that you NEED to have a gun or access to one. Your position is based in the hypothetical. So please, we need you to come back to reality now, and tell us: WHY DO YOU NEED A GUN?

[spoony]

131. "You don't always have to reach for the most extreme"

You know, that can apply to forum posts, too. You don't have to reach for the most extreme, asinine, hyperbolic, straw-stuffed, repetitive words in your vocabulary.

As for the rest of your post, asked and answered. Whether you like it or not, no one has to prove to you that at some point in the future something may or may not happen, even if they WERE able to.

[margotb822]

133. Ok W

What time is it in Africa, since we are acting pre-emptively in your world?

Get a grip. If you live in fear, you will be afraid. So, go get your gun and cower under your bedsheets. The rest of us are going to live in reality, where the world isn't out to get us...

And, you still haven't shared one example of why you need a gun to survive, so I'll give you the weekend to think real hard about it. Maybe you can come up with an answer that doesn't stink.

[spoony]

134. If the world isn't out to get you, why do you fear gun owners?

I mean, in your reality, why does it matter to you if I or any other responsible person have a gun? After all, even if one of us snaps, ADT and your baseball bat will protect you.

And, lol, I am truly amused by your bizarre, rambling, theatrically vitriolic posts, especially how you keep changing the standard. No one said I "need a gun to survive." No one has even said I need a gun. No one has said I'm afraid of anyone. All of these are arguments you're having inside your head, not with me, because my point is quite simple and I've made it several times for your benefit.

Oh and as to your other question, here's a world clock http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ so you can know, for whatever reason, what time it is in Africa.

[Dimensio0]

139. Your accusation of fear appears to be unfounded.

That an individual posesses a means of defense is not evidence that the individual is "afraid" that he will need that means of defense.

Many drivers fasten a seat belt when they drive. This does not mean that they fear that they will be involved in an automobile collision. Many cyclists wear helmets when cycling, but this does not mean that they fear falling from their bicycle.

[margotb822]

143. I guess we see things differently

I views guns as an offensive capability, or at best, a tool for hunting. Seatbelts and helmets prevent injury or death, guns cause those things. How can that be defensive? As for military and police, those are part of the job and not necessarily a personal defensive weapon.


I am not afraid of guns. In fact, I am qualified to shoot a 9mm and M16. So, given that I know how to use one, am I not allowed to view the situation differently from you?

So please, tell me a story about a person who found it necessary to defend himself/herself. I would love to hear it because all I hear about is people walking in to schools and shooting people with guns. It happened four times in the past week! (Let me guess, you're going to say that if those people had been carrying guns, they could have defended themselves). Well, why were those shooters able to purchase guns without proving that it is a defensive capability, because they certainly didn't use it that way!

[Dimensio0]

146. You have still not justified your accusation of fear.

I views guns as an offensive capability, or at best, a tool for hunting.

It would appear, then, that you are unfamiliar with the sport of recreational target shooting.

Seatbelts and helmets prevent injury or death, guns cause those things. How can that be defensive?

A firearm may be used by a target of violent crime to deter an attacker, and thus prevent injury or even death. In such cases, the firearm has been used defensively. In some such cases, the mere presence and sight of the firearm may be sufficient to deter an attack.

So please, tell me a story about a person who found it necessary to defend himself/herself. I would love to hear it because all I hear about is people walking in to schools and shooting people with guns.

Many such stories are documented here.
Please note that I do not endorse any political views or other opinions expressed at that website; I am only referencing it as a meta-reference to multiple stories involving individuals who used a firearm in a defensive capacity. Note also that I have had direct experience conversing with the individual who identifies as "DaveLoneRanger" and I have come to the conclusion that he is, in fact, a willfully ignorant "blowhard". Nonetheless, the political affiliation and general ignorance of the individuals who maintain the aforelinked blog does not alter the factual details of the various news stories to which they have directly linked.

Well, why were those shooters able to purchase guns without proving that it is a defensive capability, because they certainly didn't use it that way!

I do not understand the intent or meaning of your inquiry. Could you please rephrase your question in a different fashion?

[Quantess]

124. Everyone knows you are being ironic. I know it, you know it.

You arrived at DU for the wrong reasons...let's hear it....

[margotb822]

125. I'm being honest

I am no troll (check out my blog). I never thought I would have to defend myself, but I have never seen the merits of gun ownership. I am just trying to get someone to say "yes, I feel threatened by my surroundings," or "I like to hunt deer." Something to justify an unnecessary piece of equipment...

[derby378]

142. I'll just sit back and let you convince our police that there's no merit to carrying guns...

If the cops get to own firearms, so do we. This ain't China, this ain't Japan, this is America.

[benEzra]

145. Please see post #144. Thanks.

Thoughts on gun ownership

[benEzra]

144. Thoughts on gun ownership, from this gun owner...

I wrote the following in response to a similar question on another thread a few weeks ago, but it may be pertinent here as well:

Contrary to popular belief, shooting is Zen, not Rambo.

As I mentioned in one of those threads, for most gun owners, guns and skill with them are a well-practiced martial art, a tool of personal security, a symbol and tangible reminder of political and personal freedom, a Zen-like discipline, a fun hobby, and a locus of camaraderie that crosses political, social, and ethnic lines. It is not "all about killing," or about wanting to "blow somebody away on a moment's notice," any more than serious study of Isshinryu, Tae Kwan Do, Kenpo, or Kuk Sul Won is about killing people with your bare hands, or wanting to kick people's asses. Certainly, any martial art (including the study of the gun) gives you the ability to use potentially lethal force in the gravest extreme of self-defense, but it is about much more than that.

I hope you'll read the following with an open mind, even if you don't agree with it:

(benEzra)
my wife and I don't own guns out of fear, and I don't think many people do. As I have mentioned elsewhere on DU and on CGCS, the defensive utility is part of the picture for most people, certainly, but it's largely a competence thing, just like skill with any other martial art.

Here are some thoughts that I've posted before here on DU and CGCS, in no particular order.

Proficiency with firearms is a martial art just like isshinryu karate, tae kwan do, kenpo, or tai chi, and can gives a sense of accomplishment and competence just like any other human discipline. The Japanese concept of bushido applies just as much to the gun culture as to other martial arts cultures. I have some moderate experience in the Asian martial arts culture (isshinryu), and there are a lot of similarities between the gun culture and the traditional martial arts culture, and just as with empty-hand martial arts, proficiency in self-defense is a symbiotic benefit that is a worthwhile purpose in its own right.

Just as with the other martial arts, IMHO training and skill development are an end in itself, very much a Zen thing, if you will. To shoot well you must view shooting in a very Zen-like way; breath control, minimization of muscle tremors, concentration, sharp focus on the front sight, smoothness... A lot of the shooters I know also have a thing for archery, which is pretty much the same thing, and my wife did fencing for a while.

Some people pride themself on how well they can smack a small white ball with a stick on a golf course. Others pride themselves on how accurately they can shoot a firearm.

Also, I am a certifiable physics geek, and there are very few inexpensive hobbies that are more physics-intensive than rifle shooting. (Aviation is more physics-intensive, but it's not inexpensive...) Many shooters are mechanically inclined, and I'll bet the percentage of photographers and engineers among shooters is higher than in the population at large. My younger sister is a shooter and she also happens to be a professional engineer, with degrees in both engineering and mathematics.

Gun owners also tend to lean individualist rather than collectivist, and generally tend to have a high view of individual rights, though there are certainly exceptions. If you hang around most gunnies much, you'll find nearly as much disdain for free-speech restrictions and 4th-amendment violations as for the latest gun-grab attempt, and you'll find a lot of sympathy with the ACLU except for their dyslexic view of the Second Amendment. Note that individualist does NOT mean conservative; Big Brother communitarian conservatives are as antithetical to the individualist/libertarian mindset as any Big Brother communitarian liberals.

So I suppose it's also a freedom thing. The guns in my gun safe are a tangible reminder of political and personal freedom, a Zen-like discipline, a fun hobby, a tool of personal security, and a locus of camaraderie that crosses political, social, and ethnic lines.

(benEzra)
Here's the root of the disconnect, I think. A lot of prominent gun-control activists are people who have both been impacted by criminal violence, and have not been particularly exposed to the positive side of gun ownership. I think to some degree, they have come to see "guns" as the entity who victimized them, and see gun control as a way to lash out at that enemy. That victimization by people misusing guns also taints their view of gun owners, I think, that we must somehow be either ignorant, or evil, or some selfish mixture of the two, possibly with some sort of sexual deviancy thrown in (because some of those victimized see guns as sexualized power objects). As a for-instance, Sarah Brady's husband was shot by a nut with a .22 revolver; while I don't think that justifies her attempts to ban my rifles, it at least helps me understand it. I have gotten the impression in the past that billbuckhead had some connection with the 1999 Buckhead (Atlanta area) shootings, in which a day trader murdered his wife and two kids with a hammer and then killed nine people at a brokerage firm with a couple of handguns. And I think you said that you saw somebody murdered in front of you.

I'm on the other side of the coin. My great-grandparents were married in 1900, and one of the wedding presents was a nice his-and-hers set of defensive revolvers. My grandparents grew up owning handguns, rifles, and shotguns; so did my parents. My dad had a "save" with a semiautomatic pistol in the early 1970's, when I was around 5 years old (he didn't even have to draw it; the guys who approached him late one night in rural NC saw his holstered gun, looked at each other, and left).

Like most semi-rural thirtysomething people I know, I grew up with guns, learned the rules of gun safety and marksmanship while still in elementary school, wandered the woods with a BB gun by age 10 (not hunting, just plinking), was shooting .22's regularly at 16, had a semiautomatic .223 carbine and 30-round magazine at age 18 and a handgun at age 21, and obtained a carry license at 26 or 27. I shoot recreationally and competitively (IPSC pistol and carbine). My wife, from Maine, is a shooter who owns a Glock and an SKS. My sister (who graduated with degrees in mathematics and engineering from N.C. State) is an avid shooter. Most of my coworkers and friends are shooters. Pretty much everyone I know owns guns, and no one I know personally has ever been murdered, or participated in one. I'm 36 years old, I've never participated in so much as a fistfight outside of martial arts classes, and I would never even think about hurting an innocent person.

Most gun owners haven't experienced guns as a tool of oppression, but as a tool of liberation and a symbol of freedom and camaraderie; some (like my dad) have actually had "saves" with guns, but for most of us, guns and skill with them are a well-practiced martial art, a tool of personal security, a symbol and tangible reminder of political and personal freedom, a Zen-like discipline, a fun hobby, and a locus of camaraderie that crosses political, social, and ethnic lines.

It's not "any and all guns" that are involved in criminal mayhem; it's actually a tiny subset of guns, mostly illegally possessed handguns, in the hands of a violent few. And in fairness, it's not all gun-control activists that dream up creative deceptions to try to outlaw our most valued possessions, either. I think most of us on our respective sides are not as far apart as our legislative positions on the issue would appear to make us; I think we just have a huge knowledge and communication gap (on both sides).

As I've mentioned upthread, there IS common ground to be found. The bedrock of that common ground is, NOBODY wants to see criminals misusing any guns. People who hurt other people piss me off just as much as they piss you off. We all agree that bad guys shouldn't have them. The disagreement comes in when people on your side of the issue decide to slap sweeping restrictions (AWB, handgun bans, pre-1861 capacity limits) on everybody in order to affect the bad guys (so they hope), and we respond by opposing all new restrictions to avoid having wrongheaded restrictions slapped on the good guys. Hence the impasse.

The thing is, the misuse of guns gets a hell of a lot more publicity than their responsible use. Part of that, I think, is merely ignorance on the topic from the MSM, and part of it reflects active MSM bias on the topic. But responsible use is FAR more common than misuse, just as responsible car use is far more common than drunk driving. American shooters collectively fire several BILLION (yes, with a "b") rounds a year in target shooting and training, with a safety record better than that of golf.

And I'm not kidding about shooting being Zen. The best shooting advice I have ever received is "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast." The reason Hollywood shooting is always John Freaking Rambo is that J.F. Rambo doesn't have to actually hit what he's shooting blanks at; they'll produce the "hits" in the editing room.

I shoot competitively (IDPA/IPSC style, both pistol and rifle, against the clock, 12 to 18 rounds per stage). The winner of the most recent match I competed in was a guy in his 60's who looked like a college professor, bespectacled, with a short white beard and white hair. The key to shooting well is the same as it is in any other martial art, the ability to maintain a placid mental focus in a dynamic environment; it's a mental game, and adrenaline and testosterone are hindrances, not helps.

If you weren't so far away, I'd invite you to go shooting at the local range here. I think you'd find it much different than you probably imagine.

[LeftishBrit]

119. No. I support strict gun control, but I don't think that people who don't are callous, etc.

They just have a different view, that's all.

[Perry Logan]

126. May the souls of the slain children haunt their dreams.

[spoony]

128. Then may the souls of all those Texas has executed haunt yours.

See, you aren't the only one who can assign consequences for people not guilty of anything more than association in a group.

[Perry Logan]

129. Fair enough. Pleasant dreams, spoony.

[Orsino]

136. One purpose of the Second Amendment is to *prevent* human suffering/death...

...but thanks for playing.