Estimated cost of gun violence in America: $100 billion

[Missy Vixen]

On a day with yet another mass shooting, some food for thought.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004247675_wounded28.html

>Homicides have become the yardstick for measuring urban crime. But the far more numerous cases across America in which people are shot and wounded exact a terrible toll, too — on the victims, of course, but also on their loved ones, the health-care system, the social safety net and the economy.

"We like to think gun violence is someone else's problem, but it's everyone's problem," says Philip Cook, a Duke University economist and co-author of two widely cited studies about the cost of gun violence in the United States.<

I'm frankly tired of listening to gun proponents who insist that their precious firepower is more important than the rights of others to live in any kind of safety from it. Nice to know there's now a dollar figure ascribed to the carnage.

Julie

[zanne]

1. Please move to gun forum.

As much as I like to argue about our disastrous gun culture, I've come to realize that the gun forum is the best place for these discussions. I've noticed more pro gun-control people going to the gun forum these days, so it's not just gun people preaching to the choir anymore.

[Missy Vixen]

3. Nope, sorry

I have no interest in spending any time at all in the gungeon.

Considering the fact that this cost directly affects the economy of the United States, it needs to be discussed here.

Julie

[defendandprotect]

104. AND that is an excellent description and argument for ending the "dungeon" ---!!!

for all subjects made "taboo" by this practice . . .

[slackmaster]

2. False dichotomy

I'm frankly tired of listening to gun proponents who insist that their precious firepower is more important than the rights of others to live in any kind of safety from it.

My gun collection, locked up securely in a strong safe, is not endangering anyone.

Nice to know there's now a dollar figure ascribed to the carnage.

My contribution to the carnage is $0, and my collection is a significant portion of my retirement savings. I will fight hard against any proposal that threatens my financial security.

JulieRB, what do you propose to do about the people who are responsible for violent crime?

[defendandprotect]

105. And how would "gun control" harm you?

[krispos42]

114. At least as much as other unconstitional acts do

Tell me, how much does warrantless wiretapping hurt you?

[defendandprotect]

132. Personally . . . how would gun controls effect you --- ???

since there are clear agreements that the 2nd amendment refers to a militia ---

[krispos42]

136. Do you mean current laws, or proposed?

And since I'm a male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45, I'm by default in the milita.

Not that I agree with the "militia" interpretation of the Second, but even if that interpetation was correct, I'm still protected.

[defendandprotect]

140. If Bush isn't after you . . . you aren't in the militia --

The laws that you fear . . . how would they personally effect you --- ???

Do you seriously think you're going to use them against police or military --- ???

Or do you mainly fear fellow citizens and maybe large animals?

[krispos42]

146. I am in the militia

-CITE-
10 USC CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA 01/02/2006

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.

-End-



-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311 01/02/2006

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

Personal pleasure and recreational uses aside, I fear need a gun and not having it. For a variety of reasons, the most probable of which is self-defense. But there are other events, including civil disorder, natural diasters, and the collapse of civilization as we know it. Despite evidence to the contrary, people seem to think that civilization is permenant. They also seem to think that the US will never ever ever be invaded, also despite evidence to the contrary.

[defendandprotect]

161. "I'm by default in the milita" . . . which was your first offering . . .

but you're not saying you are OFFICIALLY in the armed services or the National Guard, are you?

Or are you suggesting that you are serving overseas or domestically?

Needless to say . . . you don't seem to want to be too clear about this ---


OK -- re gun needs ---
How did having a gun work out for the citizens in the wake of Katrina, for instance?
It seems to be some of them were fired upon and most of them had their guns confiscated?
Is that true -- or do I have faulty memory --- ?

Of course, we did have more wealthy sections of NO which were less impacted and where they KEPT
fellow citizens out by use of guns ... is that correct?

So the presumption might be that guns will work provided that our government enforcers don't think
you're on the wrong side --- correct? Or maybe that you're the wrong color --?

As discussed with others here in this thread, the Drug War has created an image of violent America --
so is our TV programming --- and there has been dedication to that cause over the past decades to build fear in American citizens. And they've succeeded quite well!

On the other hand, supposedly America was "invaded" recently --- remember the tale of 9/11?

Supposedly our giant forces -- our SUPERPOWERDOM -- our giant abilities ---
were overcome by 19 alleged hijackers --- ???? And all they had were box cutters --- !!!

Global Warming is a threat to civil order --- it will, of course, be that ---
But, again, that threat could happen very quickly --- food today -- no food tomorrow.
Bees gone. Bats gone. Sorry -- !!!

The exploiters have made every effort to destroy nature ---
unfortunately, we're a part of nature!

At any rate, let's get back to the National Guard having their heads worked over by the government trying to find out if they would actually confiscate guns from their family and friends?

Btw, the answer was "YES" . . . until some of them began to rethink the question later on . . .

dum de dum dum

[benEzra]

163. The National Guard isn't the militia of the Constitution...

the Guard wasn't even created until 1903, and I believe the USSC has ruled that the Guard falls under Congress' power to "raise and support armies."

The militia is the armed populace of military age, NOT the professional military. Look it up, or read the definition from Federal law that krispos posted. Or, go read the Federalist papers, particularly #46.

[Squatch]

168. Sorry, by the National Guard does comprise part of the militia

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Title 10 USC > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev

[benEzra]

177. It is *part* of the civilian militia (ONLY when non-Federalized), but not synonymous with it.

The Court did rule on this. I need to find the case and cite.

[Squatch]

180. When not under Title 10 statutory authority, the NG is under Title 32

TITLE 32 > CHAPTER 1 > § 101Prev

(4) “Army National Guard” means that part of the organized militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, active and inactive, that—
(A) is a land force;
(B) is trained, and has its officers appointed, under the sixteenth clause of section 8, article I, of the Constitution;
(C) is organized, armed, and equipped wholly or partly at Federal expense; and
(D) is federally recognized.

Under each statute, the National Guard is the part of the organized militia.

[benEzra]

184. From a merely statuatory standpoint (when written), yes.

But the National Guard of the United States is part of the US DoD, and is considered military reserve and run as such. The individual state guards (not National Guard) have closer ties to individual states, but can still be federalized.

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

The USSC case I am thinking of was Perpich v. Department of Defense, in which the governor of Minnesota challenged Ronald Reagan's deployment of some Minnesota National Guard troops to Honduras.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=496&invol=334

PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)
496 U.S. 334

PERPICH, GOVERNOR OF MINNESOTA, ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 89-542.

Argued March 27, 1990
Decided June 11, 1990

The Governor of Minnesota and the State of Minnesota (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Governor) filed a complaint for injunctive relief, alleging, inter alia, that the Montgomery Amendment had prevented him from withholding his consent to a 1987 federal training mission in Central America for certain members of the State Guard, and that the Amendment violates the Militia Clauses of Article I, 8, of the Constitution, which authorize Congress to provide for (1) calling forth the militia to execute federal law, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and (2) organizing, arming, disciplining, and governing such part of the militia as may be employed in the federal service, reserving to the States the appointment of officers and the power to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. The District Court rejected the Governor's challenge, holding that the Federal Guard was created pursuant to Congress' Article I, 8, power to raise and support armies; that the fact that Guard units also have an identity as part of the state militia does not limit Congress' plenary authority to train the units as it sees fit when the Guard is called to active federal service; and that, accordingly, the Constitution neither required the gubernatorial veto nor prohibited its withdrawal. The Court of Appeals affirmed. <496 U.S. 334, 335>

(etc.)

The Court ruled in favor of the DoD, upholding the finding that the National Guard of the United States was created under Congress' power to raise and support armies, and as such can be deployed wherever and whenever the hell Congress wishes. This, of course, makes the National Guard quite a different animal from the militia of the Constitution, which was intended as a check against Federal power, and most definitely not a part of the Federal standing army.

[albert johnson]

216. there was a national guard when they wrote the constitution? dont think so!

[defendandprotect]

191. White supremacists also have had paramilitary groups . . .???

a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

OK . . . so you've been game-playing . . . why?

Meanwhile . . . here's a repeat of my last post ---


OK -- re gun needs ---
How did having a gun work out for the citizens in the wake of Katrina, for instance?
It seems to be some of them were fired upon and most of them had their guns confiscated?
Is that true -- or do I have faulty memory --- ?

Of course, we did have more wealthy sections of NO which were less impacted and where they KEPT
fellow citizens out by use of guns ... is that correct?

So the presumption might be that guns will work provided that our government enforcers don't think
you're on the wrong side --- correct? Or maybe that you're the wrong color --?

As discussed with others here in this thread, the Drug War has created an image of violent America --
so is our TV programming --- and there has been dedication to that cause over the past decades to build fear in American citizens. And they've succeeded quite well!

On the other hand, supposedly America was "invaded" recently --- remember the tale of 9/11?

Supposedly our giant forces -- our SUPERPOWERDOM -- our giant abilities ---
were overcome by 19 alleged hijackers --- ???? And all they had were box cutters --- !!!

Global Warming is a threat to civil order --- it will, of course, be that ---
But, again, that threat could happen very quickly --- food today -- no food tomorrow.
Bees gone. Bats gone. Sorry -- !!!

The exploiters have made every effort to destroy nature ---
unfortunately, we're a part of nature!

At any rate, let's get back to the National Guard having their heads worked over by the government trying to find out if they would actually confiscate guns from their family and friends?

Btw, the answer was "YES" . . . until some of them began to rethink the question later on . . .

dum de dum dum

[benEzra]

202. Did you mean to reply to someone else? (n/t)

[krispos42]

198. Nope, I'm not in the military or National Guard

My pastey white ass is in the unorganized militia, the default militia for all men between the ages of 17 and 45. Selective service, anyone?


Regarding Katrina, the only articles I've seen were about law enforcement and Blackwater thugs deciding it would be a grand old idea to start confiscationg guns even they had to lawful authority to do so. I don't know the numbers, so I can't even hazard a guess. This happened before I was on DU, so it's possible that there were some articles posted and I never saw.

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

214. So ...do you think that Bush/Cheney's private army maybe took guns from NRA members?

[krispos42]

217. It's likely

There are 4 million or so of them scattered around the country. I believe that's why Congress passed a law stating explicitely that the people cannot be disarmed arbitrarily, even during a state of emergency.

[defendandprotect]

219. Post-Katrina they passed that law . .. ?

[krispos42]

220. I believe so, as direct result of the abuses of the police

IIRC, more than a year later the police were still holding people's gun locked up in the station.

[sepulveda]

4. assumes

"I'm frankly tired of listening to gun proponents who insist that their precious firepower is more important than the rights of others to live in any kind of safety from it. "

then work to change the constitution. civil rights matter. and the 2nd is one of them

your post also assumes that stripping lawful gun owners of their constitutional rights would give others safety. i see no data (nor have i ever seen) data to support that assumption.

but data rarely matters to people who are concerned with "gun violence"

how about "car violence?"

it kills more.

[zanne]

6. So you believe is just adding gun violence to the car violence?

Sorry. That doesn't pass the smell test.

[sepulveda]

10. no

i believe your arguments are irrational for the reasons mentioned

#1) we don't strip people of constitutional rights without changing the constitution
2) no evidence that stripping people of their rights would reduce gun violence, or more importantly - violence

my point in re car violence was that cars kill and maim far more, but i don't see people blaming CARS.

MADD was smart enough (and car violence has dropped significantly) to target those who ABUSE cars, specifically by driving impaired by liquor

and the analogy is also apt because even responsible car owners can get into collisions (mechanical failure, etc.) whereas responsible gun owners only use their guns when legally justified.

and statistics show the VAST (to put it mildly) majority of CCW holders use their guns legally and responsibly.

they are not the problem

[Hangingon]

20. Wow! So excited (irrational?) you scramble your syntax.

[zanne]

34. Why don't you pick on my height now?

What are you; twelve?

[krispos42]

57. Says the person for whom....

"gun nut", "gun licker", and "gun lover" are a regular part of her vocabulary.

Yet nobody has ever accused you of being 12. Oy vey.

[Hangingon]

117. "Why don't you pick on my height now?"

This is a completely senseless response - as most of your posts are. No, I am not twelve. I am old enough to spot a wacko quickly.

[SammyWinstonJack]

51. Lame.

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

107. We should be concerned with every kind of violence, including gun violence ---

But . . . are you suggesting that CARS kill people . . . ?


and it's not "people who kill people" . . ?

[idovoodoo]

5. Do you have a solution, or do you just want to insult a hundred million people///

You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking away my guns.

[zanne]

7. We're not trying to take away your toys.

We just want a reasonable system of checks and regulations on guns and gun ownership to tone down the extremist gun culture in America. If the recent tragedies that have transpired in this country don't convince you that we have a BIG problem with guns, nothing will.

[sergeiAK]

25. Oddly enough, I've never seen you outline your proposals

So post your "solution".

[zanne]

39. Tougher gun laws.

We need a much more thorough evaluation of a person't personality and psychological state before we even issue a gun license. This might involve a visit to a counselor or therapist.

We need to close gun loopholes. Private gun sales, or private transfers, must be registered and subject to background checks, which should be wider in scope than they are now.

If a man/woman/child is threated in their home by a family member or who feels threatened, they should be able to get an injunction against the gun owner, which would result in a suspension of the gun owner's license and confiscation of guns.

We need more gun-free zones instead of less. No guns in schools, churches, crowded public places, national parks, etc., etc.

No concealed carry allowed.

Now you have some of my proposals. I'm sure you'll come back at me with a kneejerk reaction or state that your facts are better than my facts. I've come to expect this. Flame away.

[krispos42]

62. I am sure that career criminals and gang members are going to follow your proposals n/t

[sergeiAK]

78. Some comments on your proposal:

Rights are non-negotiable, and can only be revoked given due process of law. This is how it should be, Bush's ideas to the contrary notwithstanding.

Your permit system lacks due process of law to deny someone their rights. It allows a doctor to deny someone their rights under the 2nd Amendment without explaining to a court why that should be done. Due process of law is one of the foundations of this nation. If you do not comprehend why denying someone their rights sans due process is a bad thing, ask people who have been wiretapped under FISA.

Second, as for the "loopholes". We have no registry. We will have no registry, as such a system is illegal under federal law (BATF backdoor attempts notwithstanding). Now, I recommended opening NICS to private sales, provided appropriate safeguards can be made against abuse of it. This would provide a means for private citizens to ensure they're not selling to a criminal/mentally deficient person, while preserving the rights of the law-abiding.

"If a man/woman/child is threated in their home by a family member or who feels threatened, they should be able to get an injunction against the gun owner, which would result in a suspension of the gun owner's license and confiscation of guns."

This is already law. If you have a Restraining Order against you, the police are supposed to take your firearms. Doesn't apply to police in some states though.

"We need more gun-free zones instead of less. No guns in schools, churches, crowded public places, national parks, etc., etc.

No concealed carry allowed."

Why? The "blood in the streets" dreams you have were not realized in any place that allows concealed carry. 48 states have some form of it now. CCW permit holders are more law-abiding than the general population, less likely to hit bystanders than police officers, and are generally well trained. This doesn't even assess the "keep and bear arms" portion of the 2nd Amendment.

Also, "gun free zones" have worked soooo well so far. :sarcasm:

You have provided a mishmash of current law, unworkable solutions, and attacks on the law-abiding, instead of ideas that would actually prevent crime.

[Thothmes]

203. In Addition

The permitting process would be discriminatory against minorities and the poor who may not be able to afford the cost of the process.

[benEzra]

160. Not sure if you're aware of this, but your restraining-order proposal is already Federal law.

If a man/woman/child is threated in their home by a family member or who feels threatened, they should be able to get an injunction against the gun owner, which would result in a suspension of the gun owner's license and confiscation of guns.

Not sure if you're aware of this, but your restraining-order proposal is already Federal law. A domestic restraining order as you describe does indeed bar the person so designated from so much as touching a gun or a single round of ammunition while the order remains in effect, and the guns must be either transferred into the custody of another or surrendered to police until the order is lifted.

[benEzra]

158. You've called for bans on practically every gun my wife and I own.

We're not trying to take away your toys.

We just want a reasonable system of checks and regulations on guns and gun ownership to tone down the extremist gun culture in America. If the recent tragedies that have transpired in this country don't convince you that we have a BIG problem with guns, nothing will.

Bovine scatology. You've elsewhere called for bans on practically every gun my wife and I own:









and have called for banning the most popular civilian target guns in America. All told, proposals you've already endorsed would take away 75% of the lawfully guns in America.

You support outlawing handguns, yes?

You support outlawing "assault weapons"?

How do you feel about "sniper rifles"? "Riot guns"?

Hell yes, you're trying to take away our family's guns (and no, they're not toys).

[CTyankee]

213. You sure have a big gun...

n/t

[Pavulon]

172. The stats stink. Numbers are spun. Here are some bullshit free

stats. You can back out suicides (mentally ill) and the guys fighting a drug war (poverty, socio economic , racial issues) . Then you get real numbers.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Speak to root cause. Gun control is for those to lazy to address why 1 in 110 or so whites are in jail and 1 in 9 blacks are in jail.

There are deep rooted issues at work here but not "gun culture" shooting range and deer hunters racking up the bodies is not reality.

Care to address reality now?

[derby378]

218. I always love it when someone refers to firearms as "toys"

Especially when they're speaking on behalf of the gun-control industry. Real mature.

[Missy Vixen]

8. It's money out of my pocket

and the pockets of millions who don't need a gun to get through a day.

I find it funny that those who insist their guns are so necessary for daily life insist on "solutions", but every last suggestion those of us who are sick of the unending carnage in the USA suggest will just not work.

Julie

[idovoodoo]

15. That's right they won't work. So why are you grabbers so goddamned intent on

subverting a little part of the Bill of Rights you find inconvenient? But you can keep trying, it's rather comical to watch.

[slackmaster]

18. Proposed solutions deserve intense scrutiny

Let's hear yours.

Or was your intent in this thread just to vent, toss out a bunch of strawman arguments, and smear some vaguely defined group of people?

[Missy Vixen]

26. You'll hear mine

just as soon as the denizens of the gungeon and their apologists admit that there is a serious problem with gun violence in this country, it must be addressed sooner than later, and that there are those who should not have access to guns.

What would you say, for instance, to the 21 year old wife discussed in the article that's going to spend the rest of her life taking care of a husband who's now paralyzed from the neck down as the result of a gunshot injury?

:crickets:

Julie

[idovoodoo]

32. Shit happens.

The crickets are in lieu of your bullshit "solution."

[zanne]

40. There's a word for this kind of attitude...

But even on DU, the first amendment has it's restrictions.

[idovoodoo]

67. The word is "realistic." The other day a drunk woman ran down and killed EIGHT

people on the sidewalk near here. Tornados, floods and earthquakes kill thousands every year. I call them "shit happens" too.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[defendandprotect]

112. The people who will finally take your guns will be the people the NRA put in power . . .

the neo-fascists ---

[idovoodoo]

116. Wrong-o. Nobody's taking them, Goober.

Deal with it.

[defendandprotect]

144. And this is the BIG JOKE of the NRA . . . that so many people think

-- and you hear this from them over and over again just like here ---

that they are going to protect themselves from fascist government . . .

Well, one of the first things they will do is take your guns ---

and, in fact, our military/National Guard were just going over that demand for citizens' guns . . .

They were questioning/practicing with the National Guard troops' heads, more or less, in an

effort to try to find out if they would actually take guns from their family and friends . . .

or if they would resist doing that --- !!!!

hmmm....


but . . . coming back to the delusion that you would KEEP your gun . . .
do you expect to use it to defend yourself against our police and military?

Not that I haven't heard this before --- !!!!

but



:rofl:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

38. What would you say, for instance,

If her husband had been paralyzed by someone driving illegally?

[Missy Vixen]

41. A gun is one of the few products made in our society

specifically to kill.

Of course, don't let that get in the way of your logic.

Julie

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

44. A gun is also made to defend ones self

but dont let the right to defend yourself get in the way of your logic

[Missy Vixen]

47. Bullshit

Those who have an actual need for "self-defense" are few and far between. It's all about the firepower and the imagined sense of invincibility.

Julie

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

53. 80yo man in texts used one to dfend himself a hew days ago

He would likely be dead today..

---
Disclaimer: I dont own or want a gun in my life..

[zanne]

58. Paranoia is a huge problem in this country...

And if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

60. erm... Youre either with us or against us...

Where have I heard that before...

[zanne]

83. You? nt

[beevul]

193. Like the paranoid people that want to ban rifles used in 3% of homicides? N/T

[fascisthunter]

210. gee... which would have come first?

the need for the gun or the fear of those that "need" guns to feel "safer"? You pro-gunners really are full of it.

[beevul]

212. In a situation where that fear is not "contrived" you could be right.

However, the situation with all rifles, and those that would like to ban a subsection of them, you aren't.

The "fear" you speak of, while real on the part of some, is manufactured, just as the current "terrah terrah terrah" is manufactured.

If you like I can readily dig up your ilks false claims that the rifles in question are "the choice of criminals" , then show FBI/Government statistics that show that they are used less in crime than shotguns.


That I can do so, is why you and you kind lose lose lose. You can't win the debate honestly, because the facts are against you.


Thats not going to change.

[RaleighNCDUer]

101. Like that guy in Louisiana,

who defended himself from the Japanese trick-or-treater by shooting him through his front door.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

141. No

Like the 80yo man in Texas who used a gun to defend himself against two young men who broke in with the likely intent to kill him..

[benEzra]

162. And that was how many decades ago? (n/t)

[zanne]

169. But Florida and Texas have "shoot first" laws...

[benEzra]

173. No, they don't. The standard for self-defense in Florida is the same as elsewhere UNLESS

But Florida and Texas have "shoot first" laws...

No, they don't. The standard for self-defense in Florida is the same as elsewhere UNLESS someone is actually in the act of illegally forcing entry into your home, or carjacking you (the only two cases in which the presumption of justifiability applies).

You shoot through your door at someone on your doorstep because you merely "feel threatened," or shoot someone on the street because you "feel threatened," and the outcome will be the same as it would be in any other state--you will go to prison for manslaughter to second-degree murder, depending on the mitigating circumstances.

Here are the Florida self-defense statutes in question:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/ch0776.htm

CHAPTER 776

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.--s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

As always, "reasonable belief" in self-defense law means, and I quote, "The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault."

[CRF450]

215. That happened earlier this week I believe.

Theirs a thread on about it here somewhere.

[slackmaster]

81. OK, there is a serious problem with gun violence in this country

Also a serious problem with knife violence, bare fist violence, baseball bat violence, car violence, violence against women, violence against minorities, etc.

All forms of violence need to be addressed.

...there are those who should not have access to guns.

I completely agree, and add that those people are quite well defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and changes that have been made to federal gun laws since then, such as including people who are under restraining orders for domestic violence. The laws are good and sound and reasonable, but not very well enforced. Most violent crimes are committed by people who are prohibited by federal law from having a gun.

What would you say, for instance, to the 21 year old wife discussed in the article that's going to spend the rest of her life taking care of a husband who's now paralyzed from the neck down as the result of a gunshot injury?

I'd say something like "I'm very sorry for what happened to your husband. It must be very difficult for both of you."

Your turn.

[slackmaster]

100. Crickets chirping indeed

:eyes:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

36. Sorry that argument stinks to high heaven

Taxes out of my pocket for medicare (which I do not need) is not an evil thing...
We dont take away someone rights because someone else abuses those rights in a manner that effect you..

[krispos42]

64. Your fallacy is the assumption...

That if the guns were gone the crimes that would have been committed with them would just *puff* go away.

Guns are the means, not the motive, to commit crimes. If there were fewer guns in this country, the social costs of VIOLENCE would stay the same, but the portion attributable to gunfire would go down.

[Winterblues]

11. If one of your guns were to be stolen and used in a crime I would like

you to have to spend minimum of twenty years in prison. I think penalties should be increased dramatically especially for negligence. Maybe if penaties became severe enough many of these shootings could be eliminated. As long as this country is saturated in guns we will never stop the carnage completely but we can certainly slow it down a bit..

[dysfunctional press]

14. what if someone steals your car and uses it in a crime? same sentence?

:shrug:

[idovoodoo]

16. You can dream about winning the lottery too.

:eyes:

[DonP]

17. Great idea, here's another

"I think penalties should be increased dramatically especially for negligence."

So, if your car is stolen and used in a bank robbery or by a drunk driver, you go to jail for 20 years plus 10 more for each person injured in the crime, since you were obviously negligent.

We will also put the car dealer that sold you the car in jail for 20 years too, since he should have obviously anticipated the car would be used in a crime.

Seems fair to me.

If you aren't happy with the 2nd amendment just repeal it. You just need supermajorities in both houses of Congress, a White House signature and 2/3 of the states to ratify the change in a 3 year period. That shoud be easy.

[zanne]

42. Try as you might to pretend that this discussion is about cars...

It isn't. It's about guns. We need cars for our daily lives and our livelihood. We don't need guns for those things. And if you're so paranoid that you think you need guns for self defense, you have bigger problems than pro gun-regulation people on DU.

[slackmaster]

19. Sounds kind of like Sharia law that whips women who get raped

Did it ever occur to you that you were blaming the victim?

[sergeiAK]

24. How about giving the thief 20 years?

Instead of blaming the victim?

[jmg257]

76. Better be careful about your willingness to take blame for a criminal's actions,

never know when it might be YOUR object they pilfer and use iillegally. It is nice YOU are willng to blame yourself though - silly, but nice. Criminals can get away with ALOT more when THEY are not held accountable for THEIR behavior - let's continue to blame others, blame inanimate objects, blame a lack of uncontitutional bans, and whatever else makes US feel better (except for those responsible) - then anyone can do ANYTHING they want - and let simply others take the blame.

:puke:

[fascisthunter]

159. Shhh... You are Not Supposed to Ask for Responsibility

after all... guns are just "tools".

Kinda like NRA members pushing for a free unrestricted market to buy guns.

[sergeiAK]

190. How is blaming the victim of a crime responsibility?

This proposal is Saudi style "justice".

[zanne]

13. For those interested in reading about gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. of A.

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

This cite will give you simple, easy to reference statistics on the havoc guns cause in the United States every day.

[idovoodoo]

30. Yeah, the Republican gun grabbers. Sweet.

:eyes:

[zanne]

43. Republican gun grabbers?

Now you're just making this stuff up as you go along. You're not really helping your cause here.

[idovoodoo]

72. Do you even have the foggiest fucking idea who Jim Brady is?

:eyes: :eyes:

[zanne]

86. Yes. He was with Reagan when he was shot...

But the organization has nothing to do with the Republican party, idiot.

[benEzra]

174. ...except that it is headed by a Republican former governor, Paul Helmke...

and is run by a tight group of Reagan repubs. Which is nothing new, since Ronald Reagan was the most anti-gun governor in California history in his time (he was largely responsible for the Mulford Act, intended to keep guns out of the wrong color hands, and supported the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch), and wealthy country-club repubs have always opposed the idea of the "little people" having guns.

That's why the Bradys are OK with $5,000 .729 caliber skeet shotguns, high-end bolt-action rifles, and the country-club, but are not OK with more plebian guns--and why they are so bent on pricing guns and ammunition out of the reach of the working class.

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control



----------------------
Thoughts on Gun Ownership

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

[beevul]

151. The REPUBLICAN brady bunch...

"Paul Helmke has served as President of the Brady Campaign/Center to Prevent Gun Violence since mid-July 2006. Prior to this, Helmke was a lawyer in Fort Wayne, Indiana, where he served as mayor from 1988-2000.

Helmke was President of the United States Conference of Mayors in 1997-1998 and served on the Board of the National League of Cities. He is a past-President of the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns and the national Republican Mayors and Local Officials organization. Helmke was the Republican nominee for the United States Senate in Indiana in 1998."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke


Propping up a REPUBLICAN organization, with a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT on DU?

Shame on you.

[beevul]

152. dupe

[marions ghost]

9. and if gun violence kills

someone in your family...the cost to you is infinite.

[sepulveda]

12. and if

some guy on a wesbite spews racist tripe, and that inspires some sort of hate crime murder by another guy, does that mean we eliminate the 1st amendment and strip all people of their right to free speech?

no

we punish the person who committed the murder.

rights have costs as well as benefits

that's how a free society works

[zanne]

22. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater...

You can't threaten someone's life without severe consequences. Free speech is also limited in the areas of libel and slander. There are what's euphemistically called "First Amendment Zones" where protestors have to be barricaded in small areas at the discretion of the police.

Yes, rights have limitations and consequences when they're abused. So why should gun owners be exempt from the type of, and number of, restrictions placed on free speech or our other rights? There are still huge loopholes in our gun laws that gun people, gun lobbies, the NRA and the Gun Owners of America don't want to see closed. You can't have it your way all the time.

There is also the question of security. You seem to put your right to be secure from harm above our right to be secure from harm. Some gun owners argue about the need for self defense as though they live in a war zone, while some of us live in a war zone because of your self-defense arguments.

[sepulveda]

23. clarifications

as to yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre (assuming there IS no fire). that's reckless endangernment. it's just as illegal with guns as it with speech. you can't walk down the street, firing at street signs, or firing in the air. that's reckless endangerment.

similar.


"You can't threaten someone's life without severe consequences."

generally speaking yes. it must be a "true threat" under the law. this eliminates most political rhetoric for example, and the speeches of h rap brown, malcolm x, and other political firebrans

"Yes, rights have limitations and consequences when they're abused. So why should gun owners be exempt from the type of, and number of, restrictions placed on free speech or our other rights?"

you are kiddingme right>? yes, WHEN they are abused.

gun owners have FAR FAR FAR more restrictions on their rights, then those that wish to exercise the 1st. even when they have NO history of abusing them

we don't require a license to make a blog or start a newsletter. we don't require people to register their bullhorns, computers ,printers, with the govt. we don't require a license to send email, or write letters to the editor. we don't use prior restraint, and we don't prevent convicted felons from free speech

" There are still huge loopholes in our gun laws that gun people, gun lobbies, the NRA and the Gun Owners of America don't want to see closed. You can't have it your way all the time."

which loopholes? the law that allows private seller exchange, like with ALL other asset classes? imo, sellers should have access to the crim databases though.

"There is also the question of security. You seem to put your right to be secure from harm above our right to be secure from harm.

no. there is no such right to be secure from harm

that's A right you invented

there is a right to keep and bear arms.

i believe in the constitution. you don;t

"Some gun owners argue about the need for self defense as though they live in a war zone, while some of us live in a war zone because of your self-defense arguments"

no, i argue for what's inthe constitution.

i believe in civil rights.

you don't

fair enough

[zanne]

28. What loopholes?

PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release:
November 21, 2005



The Newspaper Classifieds -
Marketplace for Illegal Gun Transfers
Classified ads for guns in newspapers provide opportunities for prohibited firearms purchasers to buy guns without a criminal background check



Cedar Rapids, IA – The newspaper industry is operating a marketplace for illegal gun transfers according to a report released today by The Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole.

Unlike licensed firearms dealers, private individuals who sell guns through classified ads in newspapers are not required to conduct criminal background checks on their buyers or keep records of their transactions.

Thus, the classifieds provide opportunities for felons, domestic abusers, minors and other persons who are prohibited by law from possessing firearms to evade a background check and unlawfully buy guns, according to the report. The classifieds also provide a venue for gun traffickers to illegally “engage in the business” of dealing in firearms without a license to do so.

Several anecdotes in which a prohibited purchaser bought a gun through a classified ad in a newspaper and then committed a crime with the gun, including murder, are provided in the report.


Researchers estimate that about 40 percent of all gun transfers, an estimated 5.5 million transactions a year, occur on unregulated secondary markets not subject to background checks, such as gun shows, estate sales, firearms sales over the Internet, and firearms sales through classified ads in newspapers.

According to government studies, approximately 90 percent of guns used in crimes are obtained from secondary markets. Only 10 percent of crime guns can be traced to the original purchaser from a licensed firearms dealer with a background check.

Newspaper Survey

Between April-November 2005 the Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole conducted a survey of daily newspapers published in the United States to determine each newspaper’s policy regarding classified advertising of firearms. The survey included most daily newspapers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey did not include weekly’s, community newspapers, and foreign language newspapers.

Of 1,449 daily newspapers surveyed, 1,030 newspapers (71%) responded that the newspaper accepts classified ads for all guns – rifles, shotguns, and handguns – from unlicensed sellers, while 274 newspapers (19%) responded that the newspaper does not take classified ads for guns from unlicensed sellers. The other 145 newspapers (10%) accept classified ads for rifles and shotguns from unlicensed sellers, but not handguns.

Based on the study, newspaper classifieds represent a sizable unregulated secondary gun market. Survey results for each state are provided in the report, including a list of newspapers that do not take firearms advertisements from unlicensed sellers.

Said John Johnson, executive director of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence and coordinator for the Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole, “There is a demand for guns by persons who cannot buy them from licensed firearms dealers because they are either too young or have a criminal record and cannot pass the mandatory criminal background check required on all dealer sales. Thus, it is difficult to defend a newspaper’s role in the private sale of firearms by unlicensed sellers without a background check. The potential risks to the general public (and the newspaper) from the unregulated sale of firearms through the classifieds far outweigh the benefits (revenues) generated by these ads.”

The Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole

The Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole is a project of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence. The campaign asks newspapers across the country to restrict firearms advertisements to licensed firearms dealers only, and to not take classified ads for guns from unlicensed sellers.

Since the campaign was launched, at least 69 newspapers with a combined circulation of 7.9 million have changed their firearms advertising policy after being contacted by the campaign. At least 53 newspapers have changed their policy in 2005 as a result of intensive state campaigns in just a few states. A list newspapers that have changed their policy is provided in the report and includes some of the nation’s largest newspapers: Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, Houston Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, and The Indianapolis Star.

“We commend the publishers of these newspapers for recognizing that the classifieds provide opportunities for prohibited purchasers to buy guns without a background check and have taken steps to prevent their newspaper from being used as a marketplace for illegal gun purchases,” said Johnson. “Although the classifieds represent only one segment of the unregulated secondary gun market, by changing its policy, a newspaper becomes part of the solution rather than part of the problem.”

[sepulveda]

33. it's not a loophole

there are all sorts of license required for businesses in ALL SORTS of industries.

but these licenses are not required for individuals:

see: car sales, stock sales, bond sales, furniture sales, etc. etc.

private gun sellers are just as free as private sellers of ANYTHING to sell thsi way

it's not a loophole.

it's consistent with the law for the selling of EVERYTHING

like i said, i support giving private sellers access TO THE SAME CRIMINAL DATABASES that gun stores have, so they can check somebody before they sell

that would be prudent. they are currently prohibited from doing so.

but there is no loophole

thereis law, consistent with the law of trade in any asset

[jmg257]

79. Sounds good - I can't murder or commit crimes with my gun. SO that's all you are after??

Fine - then we CAN agree! We won't misuse our 1st amendment right by yelling fire (unless there IS a fire, right?), and we won't misuse our guns by committing crimes (without jsutification) against others.

Simple and...perfect. Restrictions we can all agree on, and that ARE already in place!

[Indy Lurker]

207. You CAN yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater

As long as there is a fire.

Just like you CAN shoot someone, if they are killing another person,and you have a firearm.

By banning handguns you would be effectively making it illegal to yell FIRE in a theater whether there was a fire or not.

[marions ghost]

27. I don't think we're talking about the kind of

freedom from gun culture that exists in parts of Europe and Australia --as being possible in America. If you ever experienced the difference, you might understand.

Obviously Americans are heavily invested in defense against perceived threats, never more so than after the Rethuglican hijacking of the country. From childhood we are fed the idea that a society cannot exist without guns being available to whoever wants one. Everything in America is based on competition, aggression, hostility, get yours and hold onto it. We do not have the level of trust in our government or in other people that would allow for acceptance of a gun-free culture. That kind of social progress is light years away. So I don't think you have anything to worry about.

What we're talking about here is gun control in America that really works. We now have a situation where people are killed shopping at the mall, or going to school, or work, or traveling around the country--never mind the domestic violence epidemic that could be lessened. This is having a destructive effect on our society as a whole. My SO saw a sniper shooting from his office window a few years ago. There were pedestrians all around daring to be out in public in this quiet community. Several innocent people were killed and the gunman should never have been able to get the gun so easily (as in most of these mentally ill cases). My SO is a person with nerves of steel who has shot guns and studied martial arts. Yet this had a profound effect on him. He runs to the post office and
says he's always ready to duck.

What kind of society tolerates this? And continues to tolerate it? Only a society that is itself sick and insane.

[sepulveda]

35. it is not social progress

"Obviously Americans are heavily invested in defense against perceived threats, never more so than after the Rethuglican hijacking of the country. From childhood we are fed the idea that a society cannot exist without guns being available to whoever wants one. Everything in America is based on competition, aggression, hostility, get yours and hold onto it. We do not have the level of trust in our government or in other people that would allow for acceptance of a gun-free culture. That kind of social progress is light years away. "

it is not social progress to strip people of their constitutional rights.

we have more gun rights than other countries (msot of them ). good. we also have WAY more speech rights (look at hate speech laws in the Uk and Canada for instance)

rights carry burdens and risks. but in a free society, we accept that.

i am sorry that you don't tolerate civil rights because some criminals abuse guns. criminals abuse rights and privileges all the time. i believe in civil rights

you don't

fair enough. at least you are honest

[LanternWaste]

49. I find it odd...

I find it odd that you believe a person who thinks more regulation to an enumerated right (all enumerated rights have regulations) is a person who doesn't believe in civil rights.

[sepulveda]

56. keep and bear

is pretty clear.

yes, in the same way that i think that those that want to put undue burdens on free speech, or right to assembly, or religion, do not believe in civil rights

[LanternWaste]

77. You now appear to be re-qualifying

"... is pretty clear"
If it were that easy...

Yet the multitudes of court cases going back over one hundred years on this particular issue seems to dissuade me that this enumerated right "is pretty clear".

For my part, if I think something is that easy, it's usually because I'm only looking at it from merely one or two perspectives-- but then again, I'm not nearly as smart as you are, and feel myself compelled to search context, format, form, thesis, etc. in most positions I hold.



You now appear to be re-qualifying your initial position by adding the word "undue"-- a relevant and specific addition to your position statement...

[sepulveda]

82. we got mutltitudes of cases on EVERY amendment

why should the 2nd be any different

note that liberal academics like larry tribe have joined the throng

he does not believe in gun rights as POLICY (iow, he thinks it's bad) but he agrees that any reasonable reading of the 2nd clearly recognizes an individual right.

i think that the restriction of any right requires compelling interest, should be narrowly drawn, etc.

and i think when you look at restrictions on the 2nd vs. 1st, 4th, 5th etc. it's clear that we have MORE than enough restrictions (too much in the cases of places like DC, Chicago, etc that ban handguns) on it, and way less than we have on other ones.

im just asking for fairness yo!

[LanternWaste]

89. I was under the impression that the Fourteenth had the most...

"and i think when you look at restrictions on the 2nd vs. 1st, 4th, 5th etc. it's clear that we have MORE than enough restrictions (too much in the cases of places like DC, Chicago, etc that ban handguns) on it, and way less than we have on other ones."

Do you have valid numbers that list the amount of regulations, policies, protocols and restrictions on the 2nd v. all the others to support your opinion?

I was under the impression that the Fourteenth had the most, followed closely by the Fifth-- but I could just as easily be wrong as it's been quite some time since I've re-read Leonard Levy's,'Encyclopedia of the American Constitution'.

[sepulveda]

126. i'm the first to admit it hard to tabulate

look at it this way.

what license or registration do u need to exercise your free speech?

how have courts looked at prior restrain in speech cases?

if you are convicted of a felony, do you lose your 5th amednment rights, your first, your 4th (answer is no).

etc.etc.

and again, in certain areas (DC comes to mind) you essentially no matter who you are (unless you are a well connected politician who has security) you cannot exercise your 2nd amendment AT ALL

try to get a permit to carry in DC or chicago.


we don't allow states (or district of columbia) to selectively place harsh restrctions on 1,4, 5 amendment rights

but we allow them to do it with the 2nd

want to live in DC?

fine. just don't have a handgun, and don't even think you could carry it there if you did.

can u imagine moving to DC and giving up your 4th, 5th, and 1st amendment rights?

of course not

[LanternWaste]

153. If it's hard to tabulate, then isn't it a bit disingenuous...

If it's hard to tabulate, then isn't it a bit disingenuous to say with absolutism that the 2nd amendment has more regulations/restrictions than any other amendments?

Anyways...I give up my first amendment rights every single day I walk into the office I work in-- as there are workplace policies which prohibit me from saying many, many things. And that's merely one example.

[sepulveda]

167. no

because it's a matter, like much of law analysis, at looking at the issue

it is not a matter, like in a hard science of saying 12>10

law dows not work that way.

you do NOt give up your first amendment rights when you walk into the office

listen here. this part is VERY IMPORTANT.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the amendments limit GOVERNMENT.

they do not limit businesses, in many cases, or private citizens

they say government cannot penalize you for exercising freedom of speech. they do NOT say BUSINESS cannot penalize you.

you can criticize all you want, and the govt. CANNOT TOUCH YOU

so, you don't give up your 1st amendment rights at your workplace, because workplace, and individuals are not bound in the way govt. is. they can fire you for calling somebody at work a "jerk" and calling them fat, etc. govt. cannot prosecute you for that. work can also ban firearms.

your first amendment rights protect you from the govt. they do not insure in all cases that business that you work for cannot administratively penalize you

similarly, i feel the same way about the 2nd

if a company employs you, and they want to prohibit employees from carrying firearms in the workplace they can do so.

it's THEIR workplace.

so, you wouldn't be giving up your 2nd amendment rights if you chose to work for a company that said no firearms at work

but when the GOVERNMENT tells you that you can't carry on your property, public property (with very limited exceptions like courthouses where EVERYBODY is checked for gunss), and other's private property THEN it's a 2nd amendment issue

major misunderstanding people have with constitutional law. the rights of the 1st, 2nd, etc. restrict govt. not so much business

the same also applies to the 4th and 5th

if your boss suspects you of stealing, and you refuse to talk to him about it, can he fire you ? absolutely. do you have a right to remain silent? not if you want ot keep your job.

the govt. otoh cannot penalize you if they suspect you, and ask you about it.

compare and contrast. it's actually an excellent point you brought up, and frequent misunderstanding.

if skinner bounces you from DU for saying X, is he violating the 1st? no

[jmg257]

182. Excellent post - excellent points typically "forgotten". nt

[sepulveda]

188. thx cheers! n/t

[marions ghost]

50. It's not just about criminals abusing guns anymore...

(we know they'll do that)--more often it's just regular imperfect people who are not in control of themselves. It's not a brilliant concept to see that we need to put fewer lethal weapons in their hands.

The gun policies in this country keep people in fear and make them more vulnerable to the more insidious forms of constitutional rights-stripping. The Rethuglicans are just fine with people living in fear and being armed. It works for them. Makes good fodder for wars too.

The difference between you and me is that I can actually imagine a society where gun violence is not common and not treated as something we have to live with. Should my SO have to live with a memory of a sniper kneeling in the street where he walks everyday? Should he have to see the bodies strewn in his mind as he goes to the PO? You are not making the connection between responsible gun ownership and freedom from this type of irrational nightmare event stemming from lax gun laws. It would make you more credible in your arguments if you could make the distinction.

[sepulveda]

59. sorry

"we know they'll do that)--more often it's just regular imperfect people who are not in control of themselves. It's not a brilliant concept to see that we need to put fewer lethal weapons in their hands. "

really? not in my experience. not reading crime reports and data, and not in decades of law enforcement and firefighter experience have i seen evidence that this is the case. if you have evidence to the contrary, let's hear it.

"The gun policies in this country keep people in fear and make them more vulnerable to the more insidious forms of constitutional rights-stripping. The Rethuglicans are just fine with people living in fear and being armed. It works for them. Makes good fodder for wars too. "

no, the gun RIGHTS in this country are part of our tradition of recognizing that our citizens have and should have expansive rights, not recognized in other countries, such as speech and guns.

"The difference between you and me is that I can actually imagine a society where gun violence is not common and not treated as something we have to live with."

sure. i can imagine all sorts of stuff. but i don't wrongfully assume that restricting constitutional rights would make us safer, or without gun violence

" Should my SO have to live with a memory of a sniper kneeling in the street where he walks everyday? Should he have to see the bodies strewn in his mind as he goes to the PO? You are not making the connection between responsible gun ownership and freedom from this type of irrational nightmare event stemming from lax gun laws. It would make you more credible in your arguments if you could make the distinction. "

we don't have "lax gun laws" any more than we have 'lax speech laws". we have rights. you don't respect them. fair enough

[marions ghost]

70. OK

n/t

[krispos42]

71. Ah, a hoplophobe

Hoplophobia, from the Greek hoplon, or weapon, is defined as the "fear of firearms" or alternatively, a fear of weapons in general, and describes a specific phobia.

Firearms instructor Colonel Jeff Cooper claims to have coined the word in 1962 to describe a "mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons". <2> Cooper employed the clinical-sounding term as an alternative to slang terms, stating: "We read of 'gun grabbers' and 'anti-gun nuts' but these slang terms do not (explain this behavior)." Cooper attributed this behavior to the irrational fear of firearms and other forms of weaponry. He stated that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user."

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

The fact is that guns are the means for crime, not the motive. During the 90's crime and homicide rates dropped 50% despite virtually no change in the arms or ammunition of American citizens. During the same time crime and homicide in the UK went up significantly despite a drastic decrease in the arms of the British citizen.

Gun control ≠ crime control

[marions ghost]

90. no, "hatred of firearms" is more like it...

what's that called? What is hatred of gun violence called? Whatever it is, I am that kind of hater.

The fact is there are many rational reasons for hatred of firearms. There are no rational reasons for gun love. How could you love a tool that is designed to injure and kill?

You can argue that a gun may be a "necessary evil" in a society as messed up as ours. You can argue that we're so far gone that we can't ever hope to achieve the freedom from fear that other countries enjoy. But I don't think you can argue that proliferation of guns with so few controls is really good for society.

-------------
PS About crime stats--any statistician will tell you that you have to look at other societal variables present in the time period cited in order to draw any correlations. A better comparison would be to compare the 90's with the 00's.

[krispos42]

97. Okay

[marions ghost]

123. interesting...so the homicide rate

was up during Reagan & Poppy Bush, went down during Clinton, flattened during early GWB/9-11....and now what? So what is the trend now, five years later?

Since guns have been freely available, what other variables in American society might account for this drop in the 90's? How about a comparison later into the Bush years when it became even easier to carry weapons in some specific states?

Finally-- what is the source for these statistics?

------------------

Beyond statistics I look more at the effects on a population --of having to worry about guns, who's got them, and how to stay away from them. I have had several instances where guns have affected my personal freedom and safety, so you'll have a hard time arguing to me that this does not touch us all. All of your rational arguments don't take away the fact that we all live with fear of gun violence here in America. I could tell you some really scary stories about senseless gun violence I have been associated with. And so could a lot of those reading this thread.

[krispos42]

133. Sources..

The US information comes from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the UK information comes from the UK's Home Office report on homicides. The US information actually goes back to 1950, but the UK info didn't, so I left off that part of it.

The UK uses deaths per million, the US uses deaths per 100,000, so I converted the UK number into deaths per 100,000, hence the "adjusted" notation.


As to the causes and effect... in the 90's the economy was better, Clinton put over 50,000 federally-funded local police officers on the beat (the COPS program), and many states such as California began warehousing repeat offenders with 3-strikes-and-you're-out laws. Those probably were the most influential.

Other factors that may have helped: the increase in concealed-carry permits nationwide as states passed laws allowing concealed-carry, the NICS federal background checks for new gun purchases.



CCW holders are among the most law-abiding people out there. The standard to get a permit is pretty high and only the most law-abiding, sober people can get them. They are not the problem. The problem is the career criminals and other undesirables who carry illegally.

Interestingly, the Republicans immedidiately began de-funding the COPS program as soon as Bush took office, totally de-funding it in 2004 despite it's noted effectiveness AND the post-9/11 "all terrah, all the time" campaign.


Regarding the UK, in 1989 the government banned and confisctated all firearms that would be called "assault weapons" by the American gun-control movement, and in 1998 banned and confiscated all handguns.



Regarding your last paragraph, we all live in fear of violence. Putting special emphasis on "gun" violence I don't think is useful because guns are not the motive for crime. Gang violence, domestic violence, those are motives for which people sometimes use guns.

<edit: fixed CCW image link>

[marions ghost]

150. But what about these statistics?

Going back to the OP's article: $100 billion a year

"More than 12,000 homicides by gun were reported in the United States in 2005. But the number who are wounded and survive gunshot assaults is much greater — nearly 53,000 were treated in emergency rooms in 2006, the same federal database shows.

A report in the journal Spinal Cord a decade ago estimated the direct lifetime charges for every shooting victim at $600,000, or nearly $800,000 in today's dollars. Some estimates put the indirect costs, including lost wages and productivity, at double that amount.

In a 1999 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Cook and his colleagues concluded that gunshot injuries in the United States in 1994 produced $2.3 billion in lifetime medical costs. Taxpayers footed half of that through Medicaid, Medicare, workers' compensation and other programs.

In a follow-up book, "Gun Violence: The Real Costs," published in 2000, Cook and Jens Ludwig estimated that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year, with medical costs only a small part of that."
-----------------------

:hide:

We DO live in fear of gun violence in this country. Take a poll of those you know and ask how many have come close to or been involved in a risky situation where a gun was present. Ask how many know a victim of a senseless killing. I have personally known some and been involved in several incidents. Once I was looking at real estate and a shaky and deranged man on prescription medications thought he needed to "defend" his property by pointing his loaded gun at all intruders. Ask your friends and associates about any such situations as that...everything. You might get a reality check.

[krispos42]

195. The presumption here is that...

... if the guns went away, just click your heels together three times and *poof*, then all 53,000 people that would have been treated for gunshot wounds in, say, 2009, will receive no violent injuries from an attacker at all.

And that is not true. They will receive no violent gun injuries from an attacker.

What percentage of the 53,000 gun-wounded people will instead be injured by "other"?

25%?

50%?

100%?

More?

I certainly don't know, but I can guess. A lot.

Interesting little fact... our NON-gun homicide rate is about as high as western European countries' TOTAL homicide rates. So even if ALL gun homicides were eliminated and NONE were turned into "other" (which you know is not going to happen), we'd still be far more violent than, say, France.

Would banning guns affect homicides? Yes, of course. Numbers and statistics would shift. Spontanious homicides among people that know of each other would probably go down, while homicides between strangers (muggings, home invasions, carjackings, etc.,) would probably go up. And hand in hand with the latter, the incidences of rape, assault, and robbery.

I don't know. I know that in England and Australia they have received no real crime-reduction benefit from their strict gun laws and bans, and England has 4.4 million police-monitored surveillence cameras to boot, 400,000 in London alone. I fear that what would happen would be that the rate of homicides per 100,000 violent assaults would go down, but the total number of violent assaults would go up, resulting in about the same number of people killed but more violent-crime victims in total.

I also know this: when the right wing starts sprouting about how much safer we'll be if we just give up some freedoms and turn some rights into priviledges, my bullshit detector goes off. If you local police department said "We can save X number of violent crimes if we don't have to have reasonable cause or a warrant for a search", what would you say? And even if they were 100% accurate, would you still do it? How about if they said "Hey, listen, we know who all the criminals are because we deal with them every day. Just let us jail them indefinately and without judicial review, and we guarantee crime and murder will drop drastically"?

[RaleighNCDUer]

94. I think the misunderstanding here is that you are confusing

'civil rights' and 'constitutional rights' with 'inalienable rights'.

We have certain inalienable rights; among these, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Gun ownership is not one of those inalienable rights. It is a constitutional right, granted at the time of the writing of the constitution for the society that existed at the time of the writing.

Society has changed - so perhaps we should re-examine that amendment. Many so-called pro-2nd amendment claimants base their argument on the re-writing of the constitution that eliminates two of the three commas in the 2nd amendment, creating a false reading of what it says. It very specifically speaks to the need for militias, as they were known at that time. That definition does NOT match up with today's National Guard (which, if they are state militias, why are they called NATIONAL guard?). It does, specifically say, however, that it is a "well-regulated" militia. What it actually most closely resembles is a police force and auxillary police - neither of which even existed at the time the constitution was written. The Militia was (not an exact quote) "men of good character, of an age between 21 and 45" - and variations thereof. If the militia clause was truly unnecessary, it would not have been included and the entire amendment would read "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "Militia" was included for a reason.

You have to face the fact that the originators of the constitution never envisioned a single man with a BAR having firepower equivalent to a regiment of Continental soldiers. The 2nd amendment was meant to preserve order, not to preserve disorder. Reasonable restrictions on gun ownership have always existed. Adapting those restrictions to fit today's society is only natural, for the defense of society. That would start with doing everything possible to keep guns out of the hand of those who are NOT of "good character".

[benEzra]

166. BAR's and all other automatic weapons are already tightly controlled.

Nobody is talking about automatic weapons. The only thing most of us are opposing here is new restrictions on the right of mentally competent adults with clean records, who are not subject to restraining orders, to lawfully own non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber that meet the barrel length and overall length requirements for civilian (Title 1) firearms under the National Firearms Act, without additional petty harassment. I'm not arguing for no restrictions. I'm saying that further restrictions on lawful and responsible ownership of non-automatic civilian small arms are unreasonable, wrongheaded, and would do nothing to reduce illegal gun misuse.

To put it another way, I am opposed to senseless controls for the sake of controls (such as the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch), or those that target the lawful and responsible instead of criminal misuse (such as inane restrictions on licensed CHL). I am not oppose to all controls.

[jmg257]

183. Unalienable rights...including the right to keep and bear arms...

That there be a Declaration or Bill of Rights asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable Rights of the People in some such manner as the following;
...
Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms;...

Virginia Ratifying committee


Resolved, That a Declaration of Rights, asserting and securing from encroachment the great Principles of civil and religious Liberty, and the unalienable Rights of the People,
...
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that...

North Carolina ratifying Committee



The constitution DID NOT grant the right to arms, it specifically secured a pre-exisiting right. That right had already been acknowledged in several state constitutions. The US Constitution explicitly declared this right to be inherent in the people. It was also considered "essenitial" that it do so. All the rights enumerated in the BoR were thought to be absolute.

HR Sherman: The amendments reported are a declaration of rights; the people are secure in them, whether we declare them or not;"


HR Fisher Ames to George R. Minor. 12 June, 1789
Yet Mr. Madison has inserted, in his amendments, the increase of representatives, each State having two at least. The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people. Freedom of the press too...

Madison to Jefferson
"Supposing a bill of rights to be proper the articles which ought to compose it, admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided"



Furthermore, because a primary reason for securing that right was the vital role of the people in defending their liberties (necessary for a free State), the enumeration also secures that right from State infringements - they can't deny the federal govt an effective militia - the role of the militias is too important when employed in federal service.

[jmg257]

185. I also think you are confused about the visions of the originators, it was ALWAYS

their intention that the people out-gun any standing army. That "vision" is what they set down in the Law of the Land.
The people were to be well armed and well trained to be as effective as possible in their duty to provide the best defense of their liberties.

Now of course their vision has been distorted, the system they laid out has been changed, supposedly according to the will of the people, but the constitution itself then must be modified if a different contract is indeed the will of the people. It is STILL the law if the land, and protects the rights of the people from the govt, and from overbearing majorities. The procedures to do just that are part of that law - without doing so most restrictions that will be placed on our unalienable rights will be unconstitutional - they will be in contrast with the words and the intent of the Supreme Law.

[beevul]

189. You just don't get it.

"Gun ownership is not one of those inalienable rights. It is a constitutional right, granted at the time of the writing of the constitution for the society that existed at the time of the writing."

If that is true, then the same set of criteria apply for the first, and the fourth and the rest of the bill of rights. You can't possibly want to go down that road.

Many so-called pro-2nd amendment claimants base their argument on the re-writing of the constitution that eliminates two of the three commas in the 2nd amendment, creating a false reading of what it says. It very specifically speaks to the need for militias, as they were known at that time. That definition does NOT match up with today's National Guard (which, if they are state militias, why are they called NATIONAL guard?). It does, specifically say, however, that it is a "well-regulated" militia. What it actually most closely resembles is a police force and auxillary police - neither of which even existed at the time the constitution was written. The Militia was (not an exact quote) "men of good character, of an age between 21 and 45" - and variations thereof. If the militia clause was truly unnecessary, it would not have been included and the entire amendment would read "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "Militia" was included for a reason.

And here we get to the ignorance. First of all, the bill of rights agreed to and signed by the states, had only one comma. Yes, its really true.

Second, the second amendment is one of many limitations on governmental power.

The bill of rights itself says so right here:

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


Thats the preamble to the bill of rights, and it very plainly and explicitly explains its purpose. The restrictions on governmetnal power enumerated in the bill of rights, are those things from which the protections of our rights are derived. The operative restriction in the second amendment, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can say a well regulated militia shall not be infringed too, if you really want to stick with the comma argument, but in the end, you can not claim the the "shall not be infringed" portion of the second applies any more or less to the "well regulated militia" that it does to the "right of the people" portion, strictly from the text of the second amendment.

And likewise, had the framers strictily wanted only the militia to keep and bear arms, it would have read "the keeping and bearing of arms by the militia shall not be infringed".

Understanding of the second amendment starts with a clear understanding of the bill of rights, its purpose, its function, and its methodology.

You are not demonstrating that understanding.

[Thothmes]

205. Reasonable Restrictions

What restrictions on gun ownership were in place at the time of the adoption of the Consitution?

[Missy Vixen]

45. Thank you

>What kind of society tolerates this? And continues to tolerate it? Only a society that is itself sick and insane.<

Anyone who claims that they can go out in public now and not have the fleeting thought cross their mind that someone in that crowd may have a gun and start shooting is lying. It's affected our behavior, especially after both of us have had incidents in workplaces with co-workers who insisted on packing heat. God knows there's a lot of reasons to bring a gun to a software company, isn't there?

Even more disturbing is the fact that the gun fetishists (and as long as those here continue to call those of us sick of the carnage and looking for solutions "gun grabbers", that's what you're going to be called,) view those killed and injured in spree shootings and other incidents collateral damage. They just don't care. They've demonstrated it right on this thread.

Julie

[sepulveda]

48. i live in WA state

many many many people have CCW's and i never worry about somebody HAVING a gun legally.

that;s the point

you can continue your bigotry and such 'gun fetishists' which is just as absurd as "speech fetishists"

the facts speak for themselves

i stand for civil rights and the constitution. you don't. fair enough

there are and always will be those who create baseless fears to strip civil liberties.

[Missy Vixen]

52. I also live in Washington state

>many many many people have CCW's and i never worry about somebody HAVING a gun legally.<

And I have NEVER met anyone with a CCW that could resist letting everyone around him or her know about it. I formerly owned a shop, for instance, at which I got the neato treat of watching the asshole down the hall draw his weapon every afternoon on his way out of the building. In broad daylight. After all, we live in a city that has the lowest crime rate in Western Washington.

By the way, you insist on infringing on my rights, but I "don't stand" for civil rights and the Constitution? Grow up.

Julie

[sepulveda]

54. corrections

"And I have NEVER met anyone with a CCW that could resist letting everyone around him or her know about it"

bull. that's a logical fallacy. you only know about the ones who have a CCW and tell you, because those who have one and DON'T tell you are naturally not known to you.

this is simialr to the logical fallacy of believing that all hair plugs are badly done and easily apparent, because the only ones you NOTICE walking around *are* the ones that are easily visible hence ugly.



"By the way, you insist on infringing on my rights"

really? where?

here's what the WA constitution says. YOU need to grow up and support civil rights. here's our civil right to carry in WA state. it's in the constitution

"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

so, grow up and start supporting civil rights. it's called rule of law. it's called freedom. join the movement.

[Missy Vixen]

69. Actually, it's not a fallacy

It's my experience. Of course, that really hurts those with guns, because it shows the truth: Those we know who carry out of necessity do not have to notify those around them, show the gun at every opportunity, let the populace know that they are Armed and Ready For Confrontation.

I might also mention that hair plugs don't kill or maim. Then again, we'll get another example of what you consider a "logical fallacy".

With all of your spouting about the law and the Constitution, you're unable to address the simple issue that those of us who'd prefer to remain unmolested by gun violence and its aftermath are having OUR rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" infringed on DAILY. Of course, that's not important. It's more important that you be able to pack heat.

Julie

[sergeiAK]

95. Actually, it is a fallacy

If someone has a permit and didn't tell you, you wouldn't know. Therefore, the only ones you know about are the ones that tell you.

[Missy Vixen]

96. Frankly, sergei, I'm sick of arguing with the hairsplitting Gungeon denizens

None of you are willing to discuss the subject of the article I originally posted: The explosion of gun violence across our country has now cost us $100 billion dollars.

Have fun with your "corrections", your "fallacies" and your eternal straw men.

Julie

[slackmaster]

98. I'm interested to know where you got the notion that there is an "explosion of gun violence"

Here is a page with a whole bunch of statistics about crime in the USA.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm







Another link:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm

[Missy Vixen]

102. I'm interested to know why any gun violence at all is acceptable to you

You might want to note in your precious graphs that it seems the carnage is once more on the upswing. If it can't be called an "explosion" when we have at least one spree killing a week now in the United States, I'm not sure what could.

It continues to be interesting to me as well that those who are so concerned about "gun grabbers" have little or no sympathy for those who are injured or killed as a result of gun violence, and the fact that we've now spent $100 billion cleaning up afterwards, with no end in sight.

Julie

[slackmaster]

108. The only kind of violence that is acceptable to me is self-defense

Please don't make false attributions of what you think is going on inside of my head.

You still haven't responded to reply #81.

[idovoodoo]

109. Well, instead of breast-beating and pontificating, you should be trying to get the Second Amendment

repealed. If everybody is as "concerned" as you think they are (or as you are) it should be a piece of cake. So get to work and DO something instead of just pissing and moaning at those of us who actually believe in the Constitution.

[jmg257]

171. No gun violence is acceptable, except when for common defense, self-defense, and law enforcement.

Those causes are overwhelmingly acceptable because our lives and liberties depend on the ability to defend them from criminals, tyrants, insurrectors, foreign invaders, etc. These are the very roles mandated the people be responsible for by the Constitution - we must be well armed to be effective at doing so.

We are very sympathetic towards the innocent victims of ALL violence - we just see different, more effective ways of dealing with it, especially preferring those ways that don't infringe on unalienable rights. And of course we are also concerned about the possibility of OUR being victims - especially helpless victims.

[sepulveda]

131. hairsplitting = support of constitutional rights ?

that's fascinating.

"your honor, he's just hairsplitting with this pesky "freedom of speech" thign"

nice to know that civil rights are merely hairsplitting to you.

that's typical of statists who want to deny others of their rights. rights are unimportant when you have a grand cause to get behind. reminds me of a certain president we have.

[sergeiAK]

143. Frankly, I'm tired of your insistence that I'm a criminal.

Since you assume punishing me will solve our crime problem.

Have fun with your eternal strawmen, lack of logic, and oh yeah, all that violence you refuse to address the cause of.

[jmg257]

175. Let's discuss it then. What are your plans to MAKE THOSE responsible for illegal violence

compensate the rest of society for their misdeeds? And WHY does that have anything to do with lawful gun owners?

[sepulveda]

130. try some reading comprehension

""I might also mention that hair plugs don't kill or maim. Then again, we'll get another example of what you consider a "logical fallacy"."

no, we won't. the logical fallacy is that X # of people have told yuo about thier CCW's etc.

therefore, the fallacy is that those who DON'T do not have CCW's

i am sorry if analytical reasoning escapes you. the analogy with hair plugs is that when you notice them, by definition they are bad. it does not follow that ALL are bad. that's the fallacy.

"With all of your spouting about the law and the Constitution,"

i am sorry if support of civil rights is viewed as "spouting" by you. that says a lot
"
you're unable to address the simple issue that those of us who'd prefer to remain unmolested by gun violence"

ALL of us would PREFER to remain umolested by violence, gun, or any other kind.

you are no more different than anybody else.

" and its aftermath are having OUR rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" infringed on DAILY."

im not even going to bring up that you are quoting the declaration of independence NOT the constitution.

but it's right. you are. so am i. but it has nothing to do with lawful carry of firearms.

it has to do with criminals.

" Of course, that's not important. It's more important that you be able to pack heat"

not at all. right to carry laws don't AFFECT ME AT ALL because i can carry due to my status in law enforcement. but unlike you , i care about hte rights of OTHERS, which is why i support concealed carry.

you make the illogical correlation between right to carry and gun violence. i have yet to see any data supporting that.

and if you don't support the constitution, fine. be honest. call for the repeal of the 2nd and work for that.

that would at least be an honest approach.

[jmg257]

176. Of course - since MY right to do so has nothing to do with inflicting on YOUR rights - I don't even

know you, and I am QUITE sure I NEVER infringed on anyone else's rights via my firearms (or any other way for that matter).

And yes, it is VITALLY important we "pack heat" - gives us the best ability to defend our lives and liberties, and those of our family.

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. So, when you catch a glimpse of a weapon on a stranger's belt

do you ASSUME he has legal CCW, and ignore it? Do you go up to him and ask if he has CCW? Considering how few CCW there are, and how many illegal weapons there are, why don't you ASSUME he does NOT have CCW?

It's been estimated by some that 1 of 4 gloveboxes in the country has a handgun in it. Does that mean that 25% of the population has legal CCW? What about the 20 cars that have been broken into at the place I work? That would mean 5 handguns in the hands of criminals.

Washington State. I wonder, Ted Bundy was from there. Could he have gotten CCW? What about the fine citizens who were members of The Order - they were from there, too. But then, they didn't have to get CCW, because they armed themselves with mail-order weapons, and guns picked up at gun shows (where they also got copies of "The Turner Diaries" - great people hang out at gun shows). Are you arguing for THEIR right to K&BA?

[idovoodoo]

106. If you see it on his belt, it isn't CONCEALED!

:eyes:
jeezusfuckingchrist...

[benEzra]

164. Most states don't require a CHL to have a gun in the vehicle,

as long as it's not on your person or within your direct grasp. Some states require the gun to be visible from outside the car if you don't have a CHL, though (my state of NC is one).

Generally around 2% of the population has a CHL in "shall issue" (e.g., statuatory-criteria) states, FWIW.

[beevul]

194. I wasn't going to reply...but...

"We do not have the level of trust in our government or in other people that would allow for acceptance of a gun-free culture."

Government of any stripe, kind or fashion should NEVER have that level of trust. There will never be utopia so long as people are allowed to have differing opinions and ideology, as it should be.

As our first president said:

""Government is not reason; it is
not eloquent; it is force. Like
fire, it is a dangerous servant
and a fearful master."

"What we're talking about here is gun control in America that really works. We now have a situation where people are killed shopping at the mall, or going to school, or work, or traveling around the country--never mind the domestic violence epidemic that could be lessened. This is having a destructive effect on our society as a whole. My SO saw a sniper shooting from his office window a few years ago. There were pedestrians all around daring to be out in public in this quiet community. Several innocent people were killed and the gunman should never have been able to get the gun so easily (as in most of these mentally ill cases). My SO is a person with nerves of steel who has shot guns and studied martial arts. Yet this had a profound effect on him. He runs to the post office and says he's always ready to duck."

The reality of the situation, is this - there are 270,000,000 plus firearms in this country, in the hands of some 80,000,000+ gun owners. By comparison, around 81,000,000 people voted in the last presidential election. There are some 12,000 firearm homicides annualy.

The VAST majority of firearms are not misused and never will be.

Changes in ONLY firearms regulations would change the amount of domestic violence by exactly nothing.

Yes, gun violence is a problem, in the same way that violence in general is a problem.


It is precisely the lack of the above perspective on the part of people that scream BAN and LICENSE and REGISTER however, that keeps a large segment of those 80,000,000+ people leary of voting Democrat, which in large part contriutes to things like the inability to change through legislation the things that might LESSEN violence overall, as well as allow gays to marry, save the lives of a few million iraqi people, protect a womens right to choose...need I go on?

[LanternWaste]

46. every Right enumerated also has regulations...

"rights have costs as well as benefits"

As far as I know, every Right enumerated also has regulations placed on them.

[sepulveda]

61. correct

and gun rights have more regulations on them than speech , assembly, relgion, etc.

i don't see you calling for more restrictions on speech or assembly.

or are you?

[LanternWaste]

74. I'm taking nether side on the issue...

I'm taking nether side on the issue. Yet since you know, I'm rather curious, precisely how many regulations are there on each of the first five amendments?


"don't see you calling for more restrictions on speech or assembly. or are you?"

You don't see me doing anything because you neither see me nor hear me. Just a friendly heads up for you-- don't be so hasty in your assumptions about what one may or may not be doing.

[jmg257]

80. No - the use of the right is not limited - the MISUSE of the right is. Same with USING guns -

misuses of guns to commit crimes against others are unlawful. Plenty of reaonable laws on the books about handling such a constitutional restriction.

There are VERY FEW restrictions placed on rights just because someone MAY do something irresponsible - the regulations usually penalize for actually committing some unacceptable act. i.e. I do not have my mouth sewn shut every time I go into a theater cause I MAY shout "fire", I just will get in trouble if I do (and there is no fire).

[onehandle]

21. It's only a hundred billion.

What's a hundred billion dollars compared to the feeling of cold steel in your hand?

A long hard weapon makes you feel like a big man.

Of course there's always Viagra...

[idovoodoo]

29. The obligatory penis comparison usually shows up much quicker.

:eyes:

[zanne]

31. That means it's a universally understood idea.

The fact that you don't get it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

[idovoodoo]

37. Oh, I understand it just fine, I just think it's hilarious for it to be brought up by

someone who has neither a gun -or- a penis.

[zanne]

55. OMG! I'm a gunless, penisless citizen!

Thanks for letting me know. If I went outside without my gun and my penis, it'd be really embarassing. Do I have to have both on me, or will just one of those things do? :rofl:

[sepulveda]

63. cue:

detachable penis reference.

[idovoodoo]

66. I wonder if there's velcro involved...

;-)

[sepulveda]

68. 2 versions

censored (pg rated)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDiILrNbM4

not so censored
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRs6KWDsc0

[idovoodoo]

65. Hey, for all I know you're a hermaphrodite with a water pistol.

:eyes:

[zanne]

84. Whatever I have,

It's bound to be bigger than yours!

[zanne]

87. Here's some more good "Second Amendment" news for you.

Eight wounded in shooting in L.A. Gunman shoots into crowd of children, adults. I don't know how you people sleep at night. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gfoDbn82vGXLYNqlaVk2cEYYU0CgD8V3CDJG0

[idovoodoo]

91. The onion? Well, don't despair, there's hope for you yet

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/online_dating_helping_pathetic

[zanne]

92. I corrected the link. nt

[defendandprotect]

118. They're illusion is that they are safe --- we're all suffering from their delusions however . . .

Usually their response to this is that we need MORE guns ---

those kids were the problem because they weren't armed --- !!!

[DrCory]

165. Well...

Having used a firearm in self defense, very well thank you.

[krispos42]

75. But she lives in a pro-gun state..

enjoying the low crime rate brought on by having low-restriction private gun ownership and shall-issue concealed carry.

[slackmaster]

85. Argumentum ad hominem is the universal substitute for logic and reason

:hi:

[jmg257]

178. Hate viagra - had one get stuck in my throat once - had a stiff neck for hours!

:rofl:

Guns on the other hand are a blast!

(blast - get it? :rofl:)

[krispos42]

73. Estimated cost of green car violence: $100 million

It is obvious that Americans cannot handle green-painted cars, pick-up trucks, and SUVs. Green cars kill thousands of people a year, and injure tens of thousands more.

We must ban green cars! Green car violence is unacceptable in our modern society, and carries a massive social cost for all Americans We like to think it's not our problem, but it is every American's problem. Every day in America, hospitals are filled with the dead, dying, and injured from the slaughter caused by green-painted passenger vehicles.

And I'm frankly sick and tired of green-car proponents who insist their right to green pigmentation is more important than the rights of others to be free of fear of being smashed into bloody pulp by green cars.

[defendandprotect]

120. There are at least some regulations for car manufacture --- and licenses for operators ---

There are also drunk driving laws . . .

Maybe that would have stopped Cheney from shooting his "friend" in the face --- ????

[krispos42]

135. And there are for guns and their owners, too.

I wish I could, at age 18, get a concealed pistol permit that was recognized universally in all 50 states, after taking a written test and a gun-handling test. And minor concealed-carry infractions were dealt with a ticket and fine.

There is less to regulate in the manufacture of guns because guns don't carry passengers. Guns have to be made to safely handle up to 65,000 psi of explosive power for thousands of rounds. Not a lot of room for shoddy work there. But if there is shoddy work, you can sue and collect damages from a gun maker for building a faulty product.

[defendandprotect]

147. Guns are one of our least regulated manufactured products . ..

Nor is registration of gun ownership/purchase what it should be --- waiting periods.

How about child proof locks on guns . . . see any need for that yet?

When this fascist government gets finished with this Supreme Court, no one will be able to sue
any corporation for anything!!

[krispos42]

149. Because operationally, guns are very safe.

They don't contain toxic chemicals, they don't emit pollutants, they aren't radioactive, they are not flammable. They are steel and aluminum and wood and plastic. The fact that they are made strong enough to contain and direct explosions thousands of times eliminates the needs for strength standards and the like.

Nearly all, or perhaps all, new guns sold today either have an integral locking mechanism or ships with a gun lock or in a lockable case. And yes, I do think such things are a good idea, which is why in many states it is mandatory. I do not argue with that.

Registration and waiting periods are feel-good policies intended to discourage gun ownership, at the minimum.

[defendandprotect]

154. Unfortunately, people have had faulty guns and been killed by them . . .

as you seem to acknowledge in your suggestion that consumers could sue ---

And -- no -- they may not be chemically toxic --- but I do thing they have a detrimental effect
on the brain ---

OK -- so making guns which would have "child proof safety locks" would be a good regulation --
We seem to agree!

I don't see that anyone who is arguing to own a gun should be doing it based on some immediate
emotional need ---

and, therefore, I see no harm with waiting periods.

[krispos42]

197. Faulty guns are very rare

Even the polymer, aluminum, and exotic lightweight alloys like titanium all have tough, durable steel where it counts.

Yeah, poor maintenance, hot handloads, and other problems can make a gun explode, but this is very rare and not the fault of the manufactorer. The legal mechanism exists, just like for faulty seatbelts. I do recall an article in a gun magazine once about a guy who's rifle exploded. He got careless with his gunpowders and accidently hand-loaded his cartridges with fast-burning pistol gunpowder instead of slower-burning rifle powder. There are different 'flavors' of gunpowder, you see. Anyway, this handload made the rifle explode. It was a bolt-action gun, too, very strong. The picture was pretty impressive.


The detrimental effect from shooting actually comes from airborne lead particles, mostly from pistol shooting (rifle bullets are fully enclosed in copper; shotgun loads have a plastic cup). The lead base of the bullet is directly exposed to the flaming gases, and some of the lead become airborne.

There are alternatives, such as bullets totally encased in copper(including the base), bullets made from 100% copper, and so-called "frangible" bullets made of compressed metal power that is meant to be used against steel targets. In the case of the latter, the bullet turned into a puff of non-toxic metal that can be swept up and dumped in the garbage.

Newer pistol ranges also have backdraft ventilation systems that suck air from behind you so you don't breathe the smoke and particles in.


A waiting period IMO is either an inconvienence or downright harmful. People that buy guns often have to drive long distances to find the one they are looking for. As you might suspect, there is a very large array of past and present firearms in a variety of calibers, finishes, and specifications. Having to drive two hours or more to see a gun dealer, fill out a form, pay your bill... then have to drive two more hours after the waiting period expires is inconvienent.

Alternatively, may collectable firearms are sold at gun shows, which is in essence a temporary mall. They often attract gun dealers from all over the region or state. If you have to wait for an arbitrary period fo time to expire, that will again mean you have to do some driving at some point to get tham.

In addition, if you're in a situation that you legitimately need a gun quickly, such as a woman fleeing domestic abuse,you're SOL

[Indy Lurker]

208. I thought RED cars were the probelm

especially ones with chrome.

Red with chrome is an invitation to speed and drive recklessly.

[leftofthedial]

88. but, but, but, but, GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE!

cold, dead hands and all that . . .

[Pavulon]

181. Run a stop sign and kill my passenger while yapping on your cell

you suv or prius did not "kill" anyone. You did.

Same thing. Lawful use vs illegal action.

[leftofthedial]

192. you run a stop sign in your SUV while yapping on your cellphone and kill my kid

and I'll blow your damned head off dammit!

And don't even start threatening me with sword bans next time some samurai wannabe goes berserk in a meat market.

[defendandprotect]

103. Approximatel y $35,000+ per gunshot victim . . . No one wants guns but the NRA --- !!!

And that's an old $ estimate . . .

Public and police want guns under control ---

[slackmaster]

110. About 80 million US residents own guns, NRA membership is about 3 million

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

113. NRA is supporting fascist government . . .

and have been for decades ---

As they say, the NRA ain't what it used to be ---

The American public and the police want gun control ---

[slackmaster]

119. Nice bumper sticker slogans, but what do you really think should be done?

What kind of gun control are you referring to?

[defendandprotect]

121. Personally, I think that all hand guns should be banned . . . are you hunting with hand guns?

unless there is a reason for requiring a permit to carry one --

[slackmaster]

124. Thanks

I hope you understand that banning all handguns is nowhere near politically feasible.

BTW, would that include handguns used by the police and the military?

. . . are you hunting with hand guns?

I've never hunted at all, but there are people who do hunt with handguns. My collection includes about a dozen of them, mostly made before or during World War II.

[defendandprotect]

129. England did it ---

And, can you remember the days when England's police didn't carry guns --- ???

Are you carrying a handgun to defend yourself from the police and the military --- ????

Are you serious?


As a matter of fact, the National Guard was recently going thru questions/practice in regard
to this should the administration declare martial law . . .

They were asking the soldiers if they would be willing to take guns from even family and friends!!!

[slackmaster]

138. This isn't England

Are you carrying a handgun to defend yourself from the police and the military --- ????

The only weapon I carry regularly is a knife.

So, you didn't answer me. Would you disarm our police as well? How about all the violent criminals who would refuse to turn in their handguns?

I'm very glad that people with your mindset on this issue are not setting our party's platform. It would be a guaranteed loser.

[defendandprotect]

139. And England and America have a lot in common in regard to wanting gun control --

I would disarm our police . . . provided we reached again the point where let's say the phoney
Drug War is brought to a halt -- that's created a lot of violence.

I'd be in favor of de-militarizing the nation --
actual enemies these days are hard to find --- save the Bush/Cheney neo-con delusions which are
more about $ for the MIC and their own pockets that about any actual threat to us ---

In FACT ... at the beginning of the Bush administration Colin Powell and Condi Rice were comment ---
and you can see this on tape --- that we had no enemies . . . that we'd have to invent some!!!

I would certainly BAN ANYONE FROM MAKING A PROFIT FROM WAR . . .
and then see how that works!

Meanwhile, catch up . . . our prisons are filled with non-violent criminals ---

When we stop arresting those people, I think we'd have time for the real violent criminals who would have guns ILLEGALLY---

and, of course, time to put both the murderous Bush and Cheney in jail --- !!!

Again --- as always --- FEAR MONGERING works for a while .... but it's always a loser in the end.

[slackmaster]

142. Ending the War On (some) Drugs would eliminate a lot of the violent crime

Meanwhile, catch up . . . our prisons are filled with non-violent criminals ---

When we stop arresting those people, I think we'd have time for the real violent criminals who would have guns ILLEGALLY---

So despite our disagreement on a general ban on handguns, our positions actually have some commonalities.

I like that about discussions that remain civil. You get to know something about what the other person actually believes and thinks.

[defendandprotect]

148. Right ooooo ---

They have lousey "smilies" here --- but I'm smiling ---

[Thothmes]

206. Nor is it Constitutionally legal

Article I section 9 of the United States Constitution (referring to Congress) "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

[defendandprotect]

125. misplaced

misplaced

[idovoodoo]

127. You want them banned....except for when they aren't. Got it.

:eyes:

[jmg257]

179. Self-defense is the best reason for having one. I have hunted on occasion a while

ago - but haven't in years and years.

I do however have 2 GREAT reasons for owning and carrying handguns - my kids. I would hate to see something sinister happen to either one of them because I was rendered effectively helpless by some silly unreasonable ban.

Sad reading about another who had watched her parents get murdered for the same reason - very tragic and sad. It won't happen to me if I can help it.

[idovoodoo]

111. "defendandprotect"? Are you one of those who thinks only cops and soldiers

should have the right to bear arms?

[defendandprotect]

115. I think you should have the right . . . under "gun control" . . .

and that we should work to rid everyone of the gun mentality ---

As I've said elsewhere, the first people to take your guns will be those fascists
that the NRA has backed.

[idovoodoo]

122. Like Dennis Kucinich?

That kind of fascist?

[defendandprotect]

128. And what would cause you to try to label Kucinich a "fascist" . . ???

Was he trying to take your guns away . . . ?

No -- it will be the neo-fascists, Bush/Cheney who will take your guns . . .
or their neo-fascist successors.

As a matter of fact, the National Guard was recently going thru questions/practice in regard
to this should the administration declare martial law . . .

They were asking the soldiers if they would be willing to take guns from even family and friends!!!

[idovoodoo]

137. I don't think he's a fascist but apparently you do: from his own website I offer this:

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819

[defendandprotect]

145. So . . . you're saying that anyone who wants gun control is a "fascist" . . . ?

Does that include American citizens and the police --- ???

Meanwhile, you avoided what I said to you about the neo-fascists you're putting in office
being the more likely to take your guns ---

AND THEY'RE PRACTICING . . .

[idovoodoo]

155. Get some professional help.

Don't bother replying, I won't see it.

[defendandprotect]

156. Well, that's one solution for someone who doesn't want to ...

know anything but what they already know ---

First, resort to personal attacks --- and then . . .

There should be a monkey with his hands over his eyes/ears in the Emoticons to reflect that
thinking!!!

Good luck . . . !!

[fascisthunter]

157. you got that right

[The Straight Story]

134. Better Headline: Criminals cost us $100 Billion (and bush costs us even more)

:)

[Pavulon]

170. Swimming in BULL.

guns are not killing anyone. A person who used it is. Just like if you run a stop sign and kill me on my way to work.

You CAR did not kill me. YOU DID!

Same thing.

Back out the suicides and people fighting a war then you have real numbers. Small numbers.

Address the root cause.

Lets ban them, works for drugs and prostitution. Oh wait..

[hogwyld]

186. Well the good new is that when we win the WH

and have supermajorities in both houses of congress, maybe we can work on repealing that bullshit 2nd anachronism. I'm sick and tired of the gun deaths in this country, and it's time we stood up to the NRA and it's minions once and for all. Your right to own a killing device does not supercede my right to live.

[jmg257]

187. Cool! Let me know when that amendment is changed, and the 5th, and the 9th, and the 10th.

Until then, I will continue to enjoy all my rights, thank you, that is the GREAT thing about those absolute rights enumerated in the BoR, they cannot be denied us or our posterity very easily.

Edit: oh yeah - don't forget the recent federal public law (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) also stating that the right is to arms is an individual and private right of the people. You will need to get that overturned too.


In the mean time, my right to own ANY device has had NOTHING to do with your right to life. And as long as you don't try criminally imposing your will on me or mine - it won't.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

199. That legislation has to move fast

before the supermajority is gone in 2010.

This issue has cost us in the past, and will again, apparently.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

200. post deleted

posted twice, sorry.

(double-tap?)

[Demagitator]

196. kick

:kick:

[reformedrethug]

201. Just one question for you:

Can you tell us ehow many illegal acts of gun violence have been committed by individuals who have a concealed carry permit?

Now, before you post this and yes I know there has been some, but, also post how many ccw's have been issued, I bet you will find that the percentage of ccw carriers who has committed a gun crime is extremely low.

99.9% of gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens of this country, many own guns for target practice, yes some people just enjoy shooting at a paper target, its called hand/eye coordination and muscle control. Also, many people collect guns because they either are a history nut or a gun lover and never shoot their weapons and in fact most of these people keep their collection locked up in a gun safe.

Also dont forget that small percentage of Americans that own guns for the sole purpose of hunting to put food on their table. Granted that number IS small, but there are those out there that go deer hunting for example, get their limit and that deer meat feeds the family through the winter, hmmmmm wonder where we have seen THAT before.

A gun is just a tool, knives were created to cut correct?
A knife can kill, a baseball bat can kill, a chain can kill, and on and on and on. What you are talking about is an inanimate object, an object that can do NOTHING without human intervention. Address the issue of violence in our culture first THEN you can take a look at the weapons used.

[moondust]

204. More studies needed.

Why is violent crime so high in the U.S. but almost nonexistent in other advanced western democracies?

The U.N. keeps some international statistics and has done some studies but I'm not aware of any really comprehensive ones that cover other potential contributing factors such as violence in the media, ruthlessness of competition/prevalence of corporate attitudes, common underlying emotional stressors, whatever.

One study might include a large sampling of U.S. prisoners who were convicted of using a gun in the act of committing a crime to try to find out their motivation for using a gun, how easy or difficult it was to get the gun, if they believe they would have committed the same crime if a gun had not been available to them, were they emboldened to commit the crime because they had the gun, etc.

[Irreverend IX]

209. Estimated cost of drug war in America: $100 billion+

The lion's share of "gun violence" is connected to the illegal drug trade. Legalizing drugs would put an end to the massively profitable underground drug industry and the violence that accompanies it. History has shown that prohibition doesn't work, and adding guns to the list of contraband will only increase the violence, giving criminals a new black market commodity to fight over.

[kineneb]

211. illegal drugs, illegal guns

CIA cover for black ops fundraising...sell cocaine, etc. to inner city poor, supply weapons, make money to overthrow left-leaning governments... See Gary Webb's Dark Alliance. And he was also "suicided".


The current violence is yet another "divide and conquer" tactic... keep 'em shooting at each other, and everyone else distracted and fearful of violence, while the military/industrial/intelligence/prison complex takes over.

Very little tinfoil here...check Octafish and bobthedrummer's posts...