Own a Assault Weapon? soon the Sheriff will be at your home

[bat1]

checking your house..this is getting nuts.. You for it or against it?

Proposed Gun Law Calls For Home Inspections Of 'Assault Weapon' Owners


(Jason Howerton) With each proposed anti-gun bill put forth by Democrats across the U.S., the demands appear to be getting more and more restrictive on gun owners. While the Obama administration pushes for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and universal background checks, Democrats in both California and Missouri have proposed legislation that would result in possible confiscation of semi-automatic rifles.

Now, Democratic lawmakers in Olympia, Wash. last week introduced legislation that would allow county sheriffs to inspect the homes of semi-automatic rifle owners once a year. Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat describes the move as “Orwellian.”

The proposed bill, Senate Bill 5737, would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable magazines and magazines that contain more than 10 rounds. It would also subject law-abiding gun owners to random searches by a county sheriff.

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection,” the bill states.

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder,” Seattle trial lawyer Lance Palmer told the Seattle Times.


Read more: http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/billhandel.html?article=10837993#ixzz2LZuXAJqp

[volkov2006]

I have lurked here for about 1 year now and am finally posting for the first time.

I for one and completely for assault weapon bans. Why would hunters need a 30 Round magazine are they not a god hunter. I live in Ohio and we are only allowed to use shotguns and bows for hunting and we do just fine.

Also why would you need an assault weapon, just in case the government tries to take over? Go ahead take them on with and AK, and then you can take down the tanks, gunships!

Also since Newtown (69 days) just in this country alone (US) we have had 2036 gun deaths not just deaths in general just gun deaths, a death resulting from a gunshot. That is unacceptable, in 2010 we had over 10,000 gun deaths in the US, Japan had only 2. Yes the US has 3 times more population so let us take 2 X 3 = 6/10,000.

It is not about movies or games, Europe, Japan, Russia, South America, and Australia have the same or similar ones. And study after study states that these are not a cause of violence, what they do state is the presence of guns in the home.

So yes I am in favor of this!

[volkov2006]

I just want to add that I love studying the military throughout the world, the weapons, and the history. I play these violent video games and watch these movies and I am not violent I have never hit my wife or would even think of it , nor have I ever thought about taking a life. I just don't believe that normal citizens should have military grade weaponry. Would you be okay with your neighbor having a nuclear weapon ( that is classified as an arm) as are all weapons! And everyone who believes in the second amendment should go back and read it, it states that any state may bear arms in a well regulated militia. This was at the time the US did not have a standing military.

Do any of these gun owners belong to the state militias? Do the states have militias? No they have the National Guard! We don't need militias we have a standing army!

[giovanni_hotel]

It's a fetish for many gun owners.

Anyway the Feds will never try to implement a law that requires searching the home of gunowners to see what kind of firearms they own. It's just not practical or feasible.

I didn't know Ohio hunters were only allowed to use bows or shotguns. Learn something new everyday.

[Dino Velvet]

Anyway the Feds will never try to implement a law that requires searching the home of gunowners to see what kind of firearms they own. It's just not practical or feasible.

I pretty much agree. Just not 100% sure but not too worried either. Trying it would be a disaster.

[volkov2006]

It's a fetish for many gun owners.

Anyway the Feds will never try to implement a law that requires searching the home of gunowners to see what kind of firearms they own. It's just not practical or feasible.

I didn't know Ohio hunters were only allowed to use bows or shotguns. Learn something new everyday.

Yeah as far as I know at least in the northwest of the state it is illegal to use a rifle or anything other than a bow, crossbow or a shotgun.

[my my my!]

I was born with the constitutional right to buy and possess the firearms I bought.

I will shoot any law enforcement or government agents or civilians who attempt to remove or take away my firearms, which I acquired legally under the law of the land. Any violation of my constitutional rights is not permitted and will be met with according reaction.

[volkov2006]

I was born with the constitutional right to buy and possess the firearms I bought.

I will shoot any law enforcement or government agents or civilians who attempt to remove or take away my firearms, which I acquired legally under the law of the land. Any violation of my constitutional rights is not permitted and will be met with according reaction.

So you must be part of a well regulated militia where you live. Read the second amendment again!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Just going to leave this here.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )

[hippifried]

I was born with the constitutional right to buy and possess the firearms I bought.

I will shoot any law enforcement or government agents or civilians who attempt to remove or take away my firearms, which I acquired legally under the law of the land. Any violation of my constitutional rights is not permitted and will be met with according reaction.

One less to worry about.

[volkov2006]

Just to also put this into perspective for other people we have more regulations for toy guns, teddy bears, and other toys than we do for guns. So to make a teddy bear to be sold at a Wal-Mart you would have to have a background check of the manufacturer before any of these bears can be produced. In the same context you can go to any of the hundreds of gun shows in the US and purchase any number of guns and as much ammunition as they want without even showing any form of ID just money in hand.

[my my my!]

I know the 2nd ammendment quite well you twat.

Why would I be part of a miltia? smh...

I own firearms, and the 2nd amendment allows me to do so,and unless the amendment itself is changed, no local/state/federal law can LEGALLY force me to give up that right. Obama and his bleeding heart gun-control assholes can kiss my ass.

Of course they're going to trample on constitutional rights and perhaps eventually start the door to door thing, but only because people allow it. I rather die standing, than live on my knees.

[volkov2006]

I know the 2nd ammendment quite well you twat.

Why would I be part of a miltia? smh...

I own firearms, and the 2nd amendment allows me to do so,and unless the amendment itself is changed, no local/state/federal law can LEGALLY force me to give up that right. Obama and his bleeding heart gun-control assholes can kiss my ass.

Of course they're going to trample on constitutional rights and perhaps eventually start the door to door thing, but only because people allow it. I rather die standing, than live on my knees.

If you actually read the real meaning the official words of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution it states that you would have to be part of a militia to bear arms not to just own them. Also the legal meaning of the words never state that any one can own a gun.

If you don't like what I am saying take it up with Thomas Jefferson.
If you can't find him how about Benjamin Franklin, or John Hancock, or any of the other signers of the Bill of Rights!

[my my my!]

One less to worry about.

One less what to worry about?

Because I'm willing to defend my constitutional right?

I guess you're ok with someone else's right being taken away, as long as it's not yours correct?

You're one simple minded fool. It's morons that think like you do, that keep gay marriage from becoming fully legal and recognizable in all 50 states. Sure, you can come on a forum like this and defend gay marriage, but you would not be willing to actually march the streets to obtain that right ( you might be pro/anti gay marriage, don't care)

[volkov2006]

Also my my my what type of weapons do you own?

A pistol, shotgun, rifle, assault weapon, submachinegun, machinegun, RPG, rocket launcher, or other.

Also some other fun info so far this year gun buy back programs have bought back at least 3 missile launchers.

[volkov2006]

One less what to worry about?

Because I'm willing to defend my constitutional right?

I guess you're ok with someone else's right being taken away, as long as it's not yours correct?

You're one simple minded fool. It's morons that think like you do, that keep gay marriage from becoming fully legal and recognizable in all 50 states. Sure, you can come on a forum like this and defend gay marriage, but you would not be willing to actually march the streets to obtain that right ( you might be pro/anti gay marriage, don't care)

Actually you don't have a constitutional right to own a weapon you may have a somewhat legal right but not constitutional.

Also it is not us keeping same sex marriage from becoming legal it is the Tea Party, and most Republicans, also some Democrats. I am non of these I am for all of things that make life better and this country better, I am a Progressive.

[Quiet Reflections]

As a gun lover and owner I don't mind if they try prevent new guns from hitting the streets. I don't support them coming to my home to take what I already have but I wouldn't be against submitting an itemized list of the weapons I own that don't fit whatever regulations they would pass as long as those weapons would be grandfathered in.

[my my my!]

I only own semi-automatic , or bolt action rifles

"Assault Weapon" is the current maligned term

"Omg, assault weapons cause so many deaths" In reality, NO gun owners that I know of (of the non-criminal or psychopath variety) use an "assault weapon" to assault anything. They are used to shoot stationary targets, not to assault a deer hideout in the forest, or to charge and assault a liquor store.

Current firearms in my possession, all semi auto or bolt action , no full auto:
HK G36C
Colt M4 carbine
Howa 1500 Sniper Rifle
Yugoslavian SKS
Marlin .22
Beretta 9mm
Mossberg shotgun

[robertlouis]

I was born with the constitutional right to buy and possess the firearms I bought.

I will shoot any law enforcement or government agents or civilians who attempt to remove or take away my firearms, which I acquired legally under the law of the land. Any violation of my constitutional rights is not permitted and will be met with according reaction.

You're a moron.

150 years ago the South used the same argument to justify slavery.

[volkov2006]

I only own semi-automatic , or bolt action rifles

"Assault Weapon" is the current maligned term

"Omg, assault weapons cause so many deaths" In reality, NO gun owners that I know of (of the non-criminal or psychopath variety) use an "assault weapon" to assault anything. They are used to shoot stationary targets, not to assault a deer hideout in the forest, or to charge and assault a liquor store.

Current firearms in my possession, all semi auto or bolt action , no full auto:
HK G36C
Colt M4 carbine
Howa 1500 Sniper Rifle
Yugoslavian SKS
Marlin .22
Beretta 9mm
Mossberg shotgun

If you know anything about military weapons you would know that the HK G36C and the Colt M4 Carbine are both considered assault weapons they are any weapon or variant of these weapons that are used by the military or have more than 10 round magazines. The Beretta 9mm is okay by me I have nothing against pistols, shotguns, or rifles although I have no idea why anyone needs a sniper rifle with more than a 1x zoom scope.

[volkov2006]

I also just want to make clear I love weapons and love the look the power and the history of them. I play plenty of games that have these weapons (Battlefield, Crysis, or any other Real Time Strategy game) and watch plenty of the movies of historical military themes.

I am against people having guns because the "need to protect themselves" if someone wants to rob you let them and live.

[volkov2006]

Sorry for the triple post but I believe this will shed some light on the second amendment:

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One version was passed by the Congress, while another is found in the copies distributed to the States and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

The Second Amendment is the only amendment to the Constitution which states a purpose.

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:

This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".

Meaning of "the right of the People"

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.

Justice John Paul Stevens countered in his dissent:

When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.

Meaning of "keep and bear arms"

In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”

In a dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".

[hippifried]

One less what to worry about?

Because I'm willing to defend my constitutional right?

You're one simple minded fool. It's morons that think like you that keep gay marriage from becoming fully legal and recognizable in all 50 states. Sure, you can come on a forum like this and defend gay marriage, but you would not be willing to actually march the streets to obtain that right.

One less idiot that thinks he can take on the United States & all of it's fire power with a pop gun. I'm all out of sympathy for big talking anonymous whiners, & other such pussies. Wanna hang on to your toys? Then stop sniveling or spouting idle threats (We all know that punks like you won't actually follow through & die like you should.), & help come up with a workable plan to keep weapons out of the hands of lunatics who shoot up crowds of people who are unarmed. Right now, you're the best argument for gun confiscation.

[trish]

Posing as an marketing representative for a popular gun manufacturer, the NRA happily supplied me with the names and addresses of all their members. We know exactly which homes to "investigate." Don't worry, we'll send you an advertising flyer first. :)

[robertlouis]

Posing as an marketing representative for a popular gun manufacturer, the NRA happily supplied me with the names and addresses of all their members. We know exactly which homes to "investigate." Don't worry, we'll send you an advertising flyer first. :)

I think I'm in love! Trish, please run for office. Your country needs you.

[my my my!]

If you know anything about military weapons you would know that the HK G36C and the Colt M4 Carbine are both considered assault weapons they are any weapon or variant of these weapons that are used by the military or have more than 10 round magazines. The Beretta 9mm is okay by me I have nothing against pistols, shotguns, or rifles although I have no idea why anyone needs a sniper rifle with more than a 1x zoom scope.

geez, you are one hard headed daft person

I KNOW exactly what an assault weapon is. I was just saying in the media "assault weapon" now carries a negative connotation. In their real context, assault weapons are available to military in full automatic version making them quite different from their civilian versions.

And I don't care that a beretta is ok by you, or that you have no Idea why anyone needs a sniper rifle. You are obviously not a gun collector or enthusiast. I don't NEED anything but food and water, shelter, and clothing arguably, and to defecate, breathe etc. Do I NEED alot of video games? No, I choose to buy them because I WANT them.

I want a sniper rifle, because I want the challenge of hitting something (*gasp poor liberals, shux ,not a human!) at a far distance. some people choose archery, I chose firearms. Just because psycopaths and criminals make my TOYS seem to be bad, doesn't mean they are.

[Jericho]

Just because psycopaths and criminals make my TOYS seem to be bad, doesn't mean they are.

No, it's usually the owners of those toys who manage that! :shrug

[volkov2006]

geez, you are one hard headed daft person

I KNOW exactly what an assault weapon is. I was just saying in the media "assault weapon" now carries a negative connotation. In their real context, assault weapons are available to military in full automatic version making them quite different from their civilian versions.

And I don't care that a beretta is ok by you, or that you have no Idea why anyone needs a sniper rifle. You are obviously not a gun collector or enthusiast. I don't NEED anything but food and water, shelter, and clothing arguably, and to defecate, breathe etc. Do I NEED alot of video games? No, I choose to buy them because I WANT them.

I want a sniper rifle, because I want the challenge of hitting something (*gasp poor liberals, shux ,not a human!) at a far distance. some people choose archery, I chose firearms. Just because psycopaths and criminals make my TOYS seem to be bad, doesn't mean they are.

I am not a gun enthusiast in the sense that I don't own one but I do like studying the history of them and there historical impact.

And yes I do know that civilian versions of these gun are Semi-Auto and not Full-Auto but in the case of the shooting of Gabby Giffords the shooter had an AR-15 variant that was Semi-Auto he emptied the clip in 17 seconds. I realise that a Semi-Auto fire only as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger and if you are proficient you can get allot of rounds off in a short amount of time.

Personally I consider anything that is used by the military, law enforcement, or anything with a clip or magazine over 10 or 15 rounds to be an assault weapon. Because you don't need anymore than that unless you are assaulting something or someone!

And I don't see why gun owners like you get so up in arms about the thought of limiting guns. What is so bad why can't you just give one reason as to why you need this things other than "I need them" or "The government needs to be kept in check" or "I need to protect my family".

I have nothing against protecting your family, but the amount of dead from guns each year is tragic. Every one was horrified by the Sept. 11 2001 attacks and that killed around 3000 people, but no one bats an eye at the over 10,000 dead a year from US citizens killing US citizens.

Also the same day as the Newtown massacre there was another attack on a school in China. An adult male attacked the school he only had a knife out of the 20 kids he was able to get to none of them had severe wounds or needed to be hospitalized. Whereas here a person goes to a school and kills 28 people, 0 to 28 what was the main factor that was different a GUN.

[natina]

PRINT your assault weapon,magazine and ammunition


Breaking Gamechanger: Printable Gun Magazines - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKAaO26FAvA)

[volkov2006]

I know the 2nd ammendment quite well you twat.
geez, you are one hard headed daft person

And why do you keep insulting me and calling me names. I have not done anything to insult you if you believe I have I will apologize. I am trying to make a nice and truthful conversation and am being attacked for it, I realize you have the first amendment right to say what you want and I respect that but if you have nothing nice to say.

[Skylancer81]

If you actually read the real meaning the official words of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution it states that you would have to be part of a militia to bear arms not to just own them. Also the legal meaning of the words never state that any one can own a gun.

If you don't like what I am saying take it up with Thomas Jefferson.
If you can't find him how about Benjamin Franklin, or John Hancock, or any of the other signers of the Bill of Rights!

It means you BRING THE WEAPON WITH YOU if you join a militia. IT DOES NOT mean you would be part of a militia, never did. It means that states can and do maintain militias. The supreme court upheld that any fire arms in current use by the military can be and should be legally owned by citizens. The second amendment is not about hunters or hunting never has been never will be. Its about defending yourself from everyone INCLUDING a tyranntical government.

[volkov2006]

It means you BRING THE WEAPON WITH YOU if you join a militia. IT DOES NOT mean you would be part of a militia, never did. It means that states can and do maintain militias. The supreme court upheld that any fire arm in current use by the military can be and should be legal owned by citizens. The second amendment is not about hunter never has been never will be. Its about defending yourself from everyone INCLUDING a tyranntical government.

This was also in the time that the weapons of the military were muskets capable of firing 3 rounds a minute. Not Semi-Auto 30 round magazines that can fire off 17 rounds a second. Would they make that same decision in today's world is the question to ask. If the answer is yes then I stand corrected if no then I prove my point.

[Skylancer81]

This was also in the time that the weapons of the military were muskets.
Which was the modern military weapon of the day. The supreme court upheld that in 2000's rulings that its still considered the military weapon of the day. IE whatever our military is using at that time.

[volkov2006]

Which was the modern military weapon of the day. The supreme court upheld that in 2000's rulings that its still considered the military weapon of the day. IE whatever our military is using at that time.

We also had an Assault Weapon ban during that time as I said I am not against all guns just the ones that are considered Assault Weapons. The Federal government is trying to reinstate that ban not extend it except for high capacity magazines over 10 rounds. After the ban expired and was not renewed in 2004 the amount of gun deaths skyrocketed. I am not trying to say that it is not legal I am saying it is not necessarily constitutional. Look at all of the dead from these guns, if 9/11 happened over the course of a year would we have been as outraged. So 3000 in one day an outrage, 10,000 over a year not a big deal?

Statistics don't lie, look at Australia in I believe 1998 a massacre of 50 people happened 12 days after the shooting the government passed an assault weapons ban and since then not a single mass shooting. We just let the dead lie and keep trying to put it on other things, drugs, mental illness, video games, movies, but not guns how could we do that.

Also if people want these guns they can have them but they need to go through the background checks not to just get them and use them when they want. Right know people don't have to go through background checks at least 40% of them. We have to go through paper work to transfer a car title to another person but not a gun what is wrong here?

[robertlouis]

Which was the modern military weapon of the day. The supreme court upheld that in 2000's rulings that its still considered the military weapon of the day. IE whatever our military is using at that time.

If the Constitution said it was ok to keep a cow on your roof would you do that too?

[my my my!]

You're a moron.

150 years ago the South used the same argument to justify slavery.

fuck off asshole.

The right to own weapons for self defense and target shooting, and subjugating an entire race for financial gain are two totally different things.

Either contribute something constructive or get the fuck out of this conversation.

[volkov2006]

If the Constitution said it was ok to keep a cow on your roof would you do that too?

Let me expand on that would you want everyone to have access to nuclear weapons or a tank, gunship helicopter, those are considered arms just like a gun.

[volkov2006]

fuck off asshole.

The right to own weapons for self defense and target shooting, and subjugating an entire race for financial gain are two totally different things.

Either contribute something constructive or get the fuck out of this conversation.

They may be different things but the argument they used is the same as this one "The constitutional right to do it". Thant is what he is doing right there.

[trish]

The 2nd Amendment asserts that since militias are necessary and depend upon civilians for men and arms, the right to arms is necessary. However, militias no longer depend upon the arms of civilians. Therefore the only raison d'etre for the 2nd Amendment explicitly named by that Amendment no longer applies.

[Skylancer81]

If the Constitution said it was ok to keep a cow on your roof would you do that too?

No I personally would not. However if someone wanted to they could, it would be their right.

Back to the gun debate. Deaths by fire arms have come down since the removal of the assault gun ban not gone up. Since removal of the handgun ban (see below) in Washington DC weapons deaths have been coming down not quite down to the US level as a whole.

http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc-full.png

Just look at all the data on this page that shows as weapons have become more used in US the deaths have gone down. And in other nations as the ban on weapons has happened deaths by illegal weapons and in general have gone up.



http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[fivekatz]

Here's perhaps just few things out of many to think about when viewing our constitution.

The last Supreme Court rulings seemed to ignore the language about maintaining a militia within the second amendment, yet a six year old could read that short paragraph and get that intent unless they a political agenda to gloss over it. SCOTUS was built to have that agenda.

Hunters and gun enthusiasts need assault weapons about as much as they need drones and fighter jets. A literal reading of the second amendment says I have right to own both. And frankly the NRA would lobby for me to have them if I could pay for them because the guys who make them would want to sell me a drone and a fighter jet if I could afford it.

The constitution was written as a guideline to manage a republic, not a literal document.

And the process was so flawed that we had the Bill of Rights, the first in a series of amendments for what was ignored or left undefined.

Let's not forget when we talk about the Constitution it had to amended to abolish slavery and give women the right to vote.

The vast majority of Americans IMHO do not believe that an average citizen should be able to, or has the right to out gun the local police. Any more than they believe that only white, land holding males should have the right to vote and/or hold peoples of another race as property in servitude.

The second amendment argument IMHO is lame and I would actual dare LaPierre and those dwarfs to make that argument to the face of a mother whose baby died in Newtown.

Just my take and I apologize in advance for the harshness of my opinion but 12,000 Americans a year are dying while we argue about an ancient document?

[Skylancer81]

The numbers dying are coming down. And more gun control will reverse that trend. Background checks, sure no problem all for them every weapon every time. Mental health is a bigger issue with tragedies then the weapons involved. Better mental health care far fewer tragedies.

However we really need hammer/blunt weapon control. They kill 10
times the people guns do each year.

A side note:

Gun ownership vs homicide rates world wide.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/u-n-maps-show-u-s-high-in-gun-ownership-low-in-homicides/

[my my my!]

I am not a gun enthusiast in the sense that I don't own one but I do like studying the history of them and there historical impact.

And yes I do know that civilian versions of these gun are Semi-Auto and not Full-Auto but in the case of the shooting of Gabby Giffords the shooter had an AR-15 variant that was Semi-Auto he emptied the clip in 17 seconds. I realise that a Semi-Auto fire only as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger and if you are proficient you can get allot of rounds off in a short amount of time.

Personally I consider anything that is used by the military, law enforcement, or anything with a clip or magazine over 10 or 15 rounds to be an assault weapon. Because you don't need anymore than that unless you are assaulting something or someone!

And I don't see why gun owners like you get so up in arms about the thought of limiting guns. What is so bad why can't you just give one reason as to why you need this things other than "I need them" or "The government needs to be kept in check" or "I need to protect my family".

I have nothing against protecting your family, but the amount of dead from guns each year is tragic. Every one was horrified by the Sept. 11 2001 attacks and that killed around 3000 people, but no one bats an eye at the over 10,000 dead a year from US citizens killing US citizens.

Also the same day as the Newtown massacre there was another attack on a school in China. An adult male attacked the school he only had a knife out of the 20 kids he was able to get to none of them had severe wounds or needed to be hospitalized. Whereas here a person goes to a school and kills 28 people, 0 to 28 what was the main factor that was different a GUN.

The amount of dead from respiratory illness due to smoking is way higher than that of guns, but cigarette sales have not been banned, they only enacted higher prices and taxes and forced health risk advertising(including billboards having to be a certain distance from schools etc).

I'm not up in arms about LIMITING what guns or how many you can own. (although I still think it should be a non-issue, America has been Oprah-ize enough that the gun control freaks came out in droves again). I'm saying they cannot take MY guns. Why? Because I own them, legally. That is stealing, and yes by a legit governing body.

Robert Louis, for being the twat he is, brought up the slavery issue. At some point it was about FINANCIAL Reimbursement(nowadays you cant talk about the civil war without some uneducated moron bringing up adherence to the institution of slavery as the cause). Basically the federal government and alot of people said slavery is bad, let's abolish it and you know the story. What alot of people do not know, is that the federal government had no real plan of reimbursing slave owners for their investment (harsh as it sounds, slaves were property and quite expensive). It's the equivalent of today, the federal government saying something like (just for making a point, dont take it literally please) " vehicles are the single greatest environmental threat, health hazard *insert other reason here*. "We are going to confiscate all cars, and not giving you anything"

How would the common american react? "Oh my god, you better pay me for my car I invested *insert dollar amount here* into my car!" As well as "you're taking my car over my dead body" or "what are you going to give me to get around ? I can't possibly get around without a car". These would be very legit and in some people's cases, very grave concerns. There would be the people that take it up the ass and relinquish their car, and there would be the ones that would not , without a some sort of fight, either legal, or through violent means.

Sound ludicrous? that's essentially what was done to slave owners (albeit for the right reason, as slavery is never justifiable).

Now weapons, are a totally different animal than slavery as I mentioned to robert. How can many people owning the same thing (weapons*but can be replaced by cars*) be limited to what they can purchase due to the actions of others.

Scenario, applying everything justly.
Car owner gets in vehicle , due to imprudent behaviour , runs over and kills several little girls. Other car owners are told "due to this driver's imprudent behaviour you can no longer purchase a car"

Gun owner goes nuts, goes to school , kills little children. Other gun owners are told "due to the gun owner that went nuts, you can no longer purchase a care".

Does this mean cars should be banned? of course not, that's stupid. Same thing with guns. They should be kept from insane people somehow, but how do you detect stupid? How do you detect criminals? How do you detect imprudent drivers? How do you detect stupid texters that cause fatal accidents? How do you stop it?

Someone that does not value the importance, privilege and satisfaction and overall self peace of owning a gun might not understand it, ever. I feel sorry for any fool that breaks into my house.

Can you say the same? Will he/she hold you at gunpoint, shoot your wife/husband and still take all your stuff? Perhaps. well, maybe he is a "good" criminal and will only steal, and only use the gun to threaten you, but he means no harm. You're ok with that feeling?

Well I'm not fine with that, I like and cherish the right to defend my property with the weapons I bought legally.

I do agree with Quiet Reflections though.

[Skylancer81]

Here is another real good read on Fire Arm deaths vs motor vehicle deaths.

http://awaitinginspiration.com/2012/05/vpc-firearm-deaths-vs-motor-vehicle-deaths/

[fivekatz]

My my my, I don't think that anybody is coming to get your guns.

But comparing cars and guns is a loose argument. You need a license to drive a car, it is considered a privilege and not a right. Your car has to registered. There are regulations on manufactures of cars what they can sell to general public (not everybody gets to buy a NASCAR).

And most of all cars are made to transport living things, guns are made to kill or injure them.

Now I don't think that there should be a ban on guns, but trafficing should be much better controlled, owners needing to licensed and registered and the types of weapons sold restricted meaning an virtual ban on assault weapons.

This issue is the third rail in American politics because if it wasn't just maybe the 99% of Americans get the shaft from the other 1% might ask them to cut it out.

[trish]

Reimbursement(nowadays you cant talk about the civil war without some uneducated moron bringing up adherence to the institution of slavery as the cause). Basically the federal government and alot of people said slavery is bad, let's abolish it and you know the story. What alot of people do not know, is that the federal government had no real plan of reimbursing slave owners for their investment (harsh as it sounds, slaves were property and quite expensive). It's the equivalent of today, the federal government saying something like (just for making a point, dont take it literally please) " vehicles are the single greatest environmental threat, health hazard *insert other reason here*. "We are going to confiscate all cars, and not giving you anything"Really? Lordy, Lordy those poor slave owners! They'd be up to their ears in debt. Prolly loose their dignity and their inheritance. Oh lordy, but excuse me honey if I be laffin'.

[trish]

You have to have liability insurance on each vehicle you drive. Shouldn't it be the same for each gun you own? Better yet, each bullet?

[my my my!]

One less idiot that thinks he can take on the United States & all of it's fire power with a pop gun. I'm all out of sympathy for big talking anonymous whiners, & other such pussies. Wanna hang on to your toys? Then stop sniveling or spouting idle threats (We all know that punks like you won't actually follow through & die like you should.), & help come up with a workable plan to keep weapons out of the hands of lunatics who shoot up crowds of people who are unarmed. Right now, you're the best argument for gun confiscation.

Aww, you did not like what I said. :heartbroken:

First off, fuck off. Second, I don't want or need your sympathy. A classless asshole like you , is better left out of my thought process. But for the time being, here you go,

Your Insults are ok. For me It's about rights. I called you out on it. It's ok with you , if they take away a right we have because you don't agree with it. That's fine, I'm ok with it.

I'll never use my firearms on people , unless they come in Illegally into my home, and yes, this would include law enforcement and government "enforcing" a "law" that directly violates the guidelines in a constitutional amendment. My use of firearms is in a controlled environment with people that know how to handle firearms. I am truly saddened by what happened to the children in Newtown, but that does not all of the sudden make me incapable of handling firearms.

If the government thinks I deal in narcotics (I don't), by all means they are entitled to get a search warrant and knock down my door and come in ready to pull the trigger and fill me full of lead.

I am not a little kid *anonymous whiner and whatever else you wrote*, and I stand by my principles. Although I sincerely hope it never happens. We all gotta pay the piper sometime , and we all pay in different ways.

I'll tell you this though hippifred, I'm ok with you getting shot up in your house. It's your choice to not own weapons and have a chance at defending yourself. And I would not mourn you for being a fool. And It's your choice to feel however you want about me.

Come up with a plan? I did support a plan that was brought up where I live starting with a gun shop (which included the++ more thorough and lengthy background checks, +++a HIGHER age limit to buy guns(30 age to buy, not sold to anyone below in ANY case *too many of the shooters are teens and early 20's school age kids++ but my state senators and congressmen , city mayor and others that could influence such measures are nowhere to be reached for comment or verification of receipt of such proposals.

[broncofan]

fuck off asshole.

The right to own weapons for self defense and target shooting, and subjugating an entire race for financial gain are two totally different things.

Either contribute something constructive or get the fuck out of this conversation.
Would be hilarious to see you get banned.

I don't have much time for this argument, but I find it quite amusing that in your previous post you believe that the civil war was fought over reimbursement for the emancipation of slaves. This argument is specious. A rational person with risk-neutral preferences is indifferent between the future income stream their assets produce and a one time payment representing that income stream discounted to present value. So it makes sense that slave owners would not have minded being paid a one time sum equal to the amount they could accrue from their exploitation of human beings as chattel. And naturally they did mind having their abuse of human beings declared illegal.

The entire act of emancipating the slaves depended on them not being treated as property. People cannot be used as plows or farm equipment nor can they have their rights affirmed when their emancipation comes attached to a sum of money compensating their slavemasters for a purported loss. They lost nothing but their right to abuse human beings. In addition to being a gun nut, you are also a reactionary moron.

[robertlouis]

fuck off asshole.

The right to own weapons for self defense and target shooting, and subjugating an entire race for financial gain are two totally different things.

Either contribute something constructive or get the fuck out of this conversation.

I think I'll do just that. You're clearly someone with whom it's simply impossible to have a rational argument, with your bizarre view that your ownership and use of items whose sole purpose is to maim and kill is infinitely more important than the right of innocent citizens not to get mown down ever more frequently in mass shootings simply because idiots like you will brook no infringement on your so-called right to carry weapons. Wallow in your self-righteousness as the bodies pile up.

What a total fuck-up.

I'm glad I live in the UK where we have I guess a pretty draconian attitude to gun ownership. Oh, and why is that? Because on the blessedly rare occasions that we have a mass shooting (3 times in 60 years), we are proactive and make the ownership and use of firearms increasingly tougher.

And our rate of gun deaths relative to the USA, taking population into account (UK 60m/USA 300M) ? 2%. 2 FUCKING PERCENT!!!! Read and absorb, assuming you're capable of doing so. Actually, I don't believe you're stupid, I just think that you have a blind spot the size of Saturn where guns are concerned.

Your country has a disease. And you're one of the bacteria. Moron.

[my my my!]

Would be hilarious to see you get banned.

I don't have much time for this argument, but I find it quite amusing that in your previous post you believe that the civil war was fought over reimbursement for the emancipation of slaves. This argument is specious. A rational person with risk-neutral preferences is indifferent between the future income stream their assets produce and a one time payment representing that income stream discounted to present value. So it makes sense that slave owners would not have minded being paid a one time sum equal to the amount they could accrue from their exploitation of human beings as chattel. And naturally they did mind having their abuse of human beings declared illegal.

The entire act of emancipating the slaves depended on them not being treated as property. People cannot be used as plows or farm equipment nor can they have their rights affirmed when their emancipation comes attached to a sum of money compensating their slavemasters for a purported loss. They lost nothing but their right to abuse human beings. In addition to being a gun nut, you are also a reactionary moron.

No, I'm saying that SLAVERY is Bad. very bad, one of the most inhuman conditions that any human has ever been put through or could be put through (it still exist to this day)

I don't know what you find amusing. I brought it up because Robert Louis brought it up in this conversation about gun ownership/rights etc.

These are civil war facts, not liberally sugar coated to spare any side any guilt or shame:
The North fought to preserve the union, and to end Slavery. The south Seceded, and was FORCED (the north said come back into the union willingly or by military force) to fight to preserve and defend their way of life (which inlcuded slavery, personally I'm glad they lost but times were different then and blacks were property to many southerners, and they were human to others), because believe it or not through your liberal skull, to most slave owning southerners, slaves were PROPERTY. And they were not ok, with the government all of the sudden coming and saying "by the way, you're losing all your property because we say so". The United States never came up with a real reimbursement plan ( slavery was bad, and many americans died for what could've been settled peacefully) In reality the United States really messed up , by the pre civil war policy of 50/50 one free state for every slave state or territory. This showed that the united states was willing to tolerate slavery as long as they condemned it, until the tensions boiled over and led the United States into it's divisive civil war.

You call me moron, I'm ok with it I feel the same about you. simple as that.

[Prospero]

Oh dear - another neanderthal in our midst.

[my my my!]

Really? Lordy, Lordy those poor slave owners! They'd be up to their ears in debt. Prolly loose their dignity and their inheritance. Oh lordy, but excuse me honey if I be laffin'.

I'm not defending slavery....

Once again, I'm giving the reason of why the south did not abolish slavery voluntarily, Although they might have done it peacefully eventually. They did however finally admit after military defeat, and had to do it for re-admittance into the union later.

As harsh as it sounds , to most slaveowners(there were noble souls that helped with the underground railroad, or emancipated their own slaves because they knew it was morally wrong, or kept slaves in "better" conditions compared to other slave owners) back then, a slave was an Investment, property , machine and not a person to be treated equally as they would treat a white person.

Laugh all you want Trish, but it was very serious to them. If you think I'm defending them, no. I'm simply stating that people, back then as well as today (hence why i brought up the car comparison to guns, not slavery) do not like the government taking/confiscating property(yes, slaves were property) no matter how immoral it might seem to someone else. Robert Louis suggested that my adherence to gun ownership rights was similar to the Southerners defending slavery.

sorry for the confusion.

[Prospero]

I was born with the constitutional right to buy and possess the firearms I bought.

I will shoot any law enforcement or government agents or civilians who attempt to remove or take away my firearms, which I acquired legally under the law of the land. Any violation of my constitutional rights is not permitted and will be met with according reaction.


What a jerk. What a ludicrous position to take - as if possession of weapons made only to kill is a god given right.

[Prospero]

I know the 2nd ammendment quite well you twat.

Why would I be part of a miltia? smh...

I own firearms, and the 2nd amendment allows me to do so,and unless the amendment itself is changed, no local/state/federal law can LEGALLY force me to give up that right. Obama and his bleeding heart gun-control assholes can kiss my ass.

Of course they're going to trample on constitutional rights and perhaps eventually start the door to door thing, but only because people allow it. I rather die standing, than live on my knees.

Originally Posted by robertlouis
You're a moron.

150 years ago the South used the same argument to justify slavery.
fuck off asshole.

The right to own weapons for self defense and target shooting, and subjugating an entire race for financial gain are two totally different things.

Either contribute something constructive or get the fuck out of this conversation.

Aww, you did not like what I said.

First off, fuck off. Second, I don't want or need your sympathy. A classless asshole like you , is better left out of my thought process. But for the time being, here you go,

Your Insults are ok. For me It's about rights. I called you out on it. It's ok with you , if they take away a right we have because you don't agree with it. That's fine, I'm ok with it.

I'll never use my firearms on people , unless they come in Illegally into my home, and yes, this would include law enforcement and government "enforcing" a "law" that directly violates the guidelines in a constitutional amendment. My use of firearms is in a controlled environment with people that know how to handle firearms. I am truly saddened by what happened to the children in Newtown, but that does not all of the sudden make me incapable of handling firearms.

If the government thinks I deal in narcotics (I don't), by all means they are entitled to get a search warrant and knock down my door and come in ready to pull the trigger and fill me full of lead.

I am not a little kid *anonymous whiner and whatever else you wrote*, and I stand by my principles. Although I sincerely hope it never happens. We all gotta pay the piper sometime , and we all pay in different ways.

I'll tell you this though hippifred, I'm ok with you getting shot up in your house. It's your choice to not own weapons and have a chance at defending yourself. And I would not mourn you for being a fool. And It's your choice to feel however you want about me.

My My My - never noticed your posts before, presumably because they were about the main thing people are here for. Please desist from using such immediately and gratuitously offensive language in what is supposedly a reasonable argument. Otherwise your posts will be removed.

[martin48]

I just "love" you all going on about guns. The argument for keeping them is not about self-defence against the robber or the state, but it's all about the sheer hard-on of owning a gun.

The strange thing is that usually "bigger guns" like "bigger autos" mean small dicks; but with guys let My My My, then "bigger guns" mean "bigger dicks".

[trish]

I'm not defending slavery...Yeah, clearly...you're just defending the slave owner's right to fair compensation for the freeing of his slaves. What hole did you say you crawled out of?

[broncofan]

What hole did you say you crawled out of?
That's a hell of a way to talk about his mother:wink:

[my my my!]

Yeah, clearly...you're just defending the slave owner's right to fair compensation for the freeing of his slaves. What hole did you say you crawled out of?

smh...

I'm not defending their right to compensation ,I'm quite glad Uncle Sam told them to f off basically,

What I'm saying is that a human with property gets pissed off when someone suggests forcing them to relinquish said property. If you don't understand losing something really expensive at the whim of a government entitiy, then you don't understand the reference. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's the way it was back then.

Slavery= bad, period.

Government taking/confiscating/separating LEGALLY purchased property from citizens= pissed off citizens. Yes slaves were property, sadly.

pissed off citizens= rebellion, riots, lawsuits , violence, bitterness

I'm not getting why you don't understand such a simple concept. :confused:

[trish]

Ownership of Semi-automatic weapons = bad, reckless, and dangerous (to the community), period.

Goverment taking/confiscating/separating generally life threatening, high risk devices from owners (regardless of how it was acquired) = the right thing to do.

It was wrong to own slaves. It is wrong for private citizens to endanger the public by secretly carrying semi-automatic weapons. Yes, it was "legal" to own a slave. But no one EVER had a right to own a slave. No matter what was written on a sheet of paper. No individual has a right to own a nuclear warhead. No one has a right to own a semi-automatic weapon, let alone slink around in public carrying it secretly. As you say, I'll be glad if Uncle Sam tells them to fuck off.

I'm not getting why you don't understand such a simple and decent concept.

But go ahead, secede, rebel, revolt. See how many people want to give up all their other constitutional guarantees for the sake of one that should have been repealed ages ago.

[Odelay]

I'll tell you this though hippifred, I'm ok with you getting shot up in your house. It's your choice to not own weapons and have a chance at defending yourself. And I would not mourn you for being a fool. And It's your choice to feel however you want about me.hippifried is going to get shot up in his house?

Several things come to mind. First, I didn't know hippi owned a house. I figured his countercultural persona would have sort of steered him away from the mass hysteria of the housing market of the last several decades.

Second, are we sure that hippi doesn't have some mean old doberman waiting for any invader? Seems more like his style than some semi-automatic small penis compensating weapon.

Finally, unlike the author, I would mourn hippi's demise. Although, I bet he'd have a helluva wake. Hope I'm invited.

[trish]

hippifried is going to get shot up in his house?The odds are against it. With near certainty hippifried's life will never be seriously threatened by a home intruder. Which brings up the point: guns are very rarely used for protection. They are used to engender peace of mind. But the peace of mind afforded by a gun in your home is illusory. It comes with a cost. The cost of the illusion is increased risk of injury or fatality to family, friends and visitors to your home. Accidents, suicides, murder in a fit of anger. When there's a gun in your home, all these things are way more likely to occur than a home invader who threatens your life.

Good post, Odelay. Love you hippiefried.

[buttslinger]

My house got broken into twice when I lived in a bad neighborhood.

Young black kids,

Several times little gangs of elementary school kids would just walk into my house, once when I was upstairs taking a bath. I considered running down the stairs naked and shouting, but ...nah.

None of those kids deserved to get shot. How did I remedy the situation? I moved to another neighborhood and paid four times the mortgage.

GUNS SHOULD BE LEGAL FOR WHITE ADULTS BUT ILLEGAL FOR YOUNG BLACK MEN.

Of course that's ridiculous, but you can bet black kids on the corner in a bad neighborhood, or driving around the ghetto in a new car get stopped by the cops daily, so in that respect ..........

Guns are dangerous in desperate hands, that is why Obama is stressing SCHOOL for kindergarteners. That is the only realistic cure, or the MOST realistic cure. Give kids something to live for.

This pic has nothing to do with this post, I just like Bogie.

[Stavros]

I don't have anything to add to the specific issue that started this thread, but I have noticed, and not just on HA that guns and politics in the USA produces a frenzy of debate (if that is what it is) more than any other domestic topic I can think of; more than abortion, gay marriage, drugs, or really important things like education and jobs. In less than 24 hours this thread is already on page 7... why?

[volkov2006]

In response to the gun deaths compared to other things like cars or cigarettes there is one thing different only one is designed to kill as its only purpose. And that one is guns it has no other purpose you can't drive it, smoke it, cook with it, or do anything else with it you can shoot and nothing else, either responsibly or to kill.

[volkov2006]

I am also going to post an estimated gun death total since Newtown every day:

70 days since Newtown 2141 gun related deaths up by 105 since yesterday, these are only ins the US deaths by guns, since December 14 2012.

I believe that to be too high, these are no combat deaths, we did not more soldiers in the entire war on terror then we do in the US yearly, also are those gun deaths going down from conservative or right wing studies, in 2010 we had over 10,000 in 2011 we had over 9,000 if I am correct in that and in 2012 we had over 12,000 how is that acceptable what are the causes guns.

Sorry for the double post.

[thombergeron]

Current firearms in my possession, all semi auto or bolt action , no full auto:
HK G36C
Colt M4 carbine
Howa 1500 Sniper Rifle
Yugoslavian SKS
Marlin .22
Beretta 9mm
Mossberg shotgun

Unless you are active-duty military or law enforcement, you do not have a Colt M4, which is an automatic rifle. You may own one of Colt's civilian AR-15 models, but the M4 is the military version, which you do not have.

Weird thing to lie about, since you could actually own Colt's LESOCOM carbine, which looks remarkably like the M4. But if you're claiming to own an honest-to-god M4, then you're lying.

[broncofan]

because believe it or not through your liberal skull, to most slave owning southerners, slaves were PROPERTY.

You call me moron, .
First of all, you are a moron. It's not just something I call you.

Second of all some of your later posts make it sound like you grasp exactly how bad slavery was. However you seem to justify the anger of the southerners because they believed they had a vested property right in people. Who cares what they thought? Next thing you're going to tell me a pedophile thinks he has a right to screw children. Have you ever heard of something called natural law? There are certain things decent people don't do even when permitted. The only way slaveowners should have been compensated is by trying on the shackles for themselves.

I have a new working definition of chutzpah: being told that your previous practice of enslaving human beings is an affront to human dignity as well a grave violation of human rights and demanding compensation to stop doing it.

Finally, you obviously have a fetish for guns. Early on in our country's history it was settled that the arbiter of the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature is the judiciary. I doubt you're a judge. So if a law is passed, you do not rule on whether it is constitutional. If you try to shoot a police officer doing his job, my support goes to the officer, not to you.

[my my my!]

First of all, you are a moron. It's not just something I call you.

Second of all some of your later posts make it sound like you grasp exactly how bad slavery was. However you seem to justify the anger of the southerners because they believed they had a vested property right in people. Who cares what they thought? Next thing you're going to tell me a pedophile thinks he has a right to screw children. Have you ever heard of something called natural law? There are certain things decent people don't do even when permitted. The only way slaveowners should have been compensated is by trying on the shackles for themselves.

I have a new working definition of chutzpah: being told that your previous practice of enslaving human beings is an affront to human dignity as well a grave violation of human rights and demanding compensation to stop doing it.

Finally, you obviously have a fetish for guns. Early on in our country's history it was settled that the arbiter of the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature is the judiciary. I doubt you're a judge. So if a law is passed, you do not rule on whether it is constitutional. If you try to shoot a police officer doing his job, my support goes to the officer, not to you.

You're yet another moron here.

I have clearly stated that I am fully against Slavery you dumbass. If your reading comprehension does not allow you to see that, then it is your fault and not mine.

1: I don't have a fetish for guns, to me they DO NOT mean what they mean to you aka "potential killing machine or object designed to kill people" . To me they're a hunk of plastic and metal that I use to test my hand and eye coordination on non-live targets. Can you get that through your thick skull?
A knife to me does not mean "stabby weapon" it means "vegetable chopper"
You're so fucking dense , you just come across as stupid.

2: I don't justify the anger of the slave owners. I'm saying they were angry, because they were. The civil war is proof that they didn't like the idea of being told to free their slaves.
As far as your moronic suggestion the owners shackle themselves. If you were to go back in time, they would've told you to fuck off just like they did to the US Government.You don't accept that? You want to live in lala land and everything is cotton candy and fluffy bunnies and good people? Go ahead, skip the reality of what SLAVERY was and how bad people can be.
To the civil war era slave and us in 2013 looking at it now, Slavery was the worst fucking thing to happen to a human.To the slave owners of 1860, not so, they were merely property. What do you not get about that moron? I've stated many times to you incompetent readers, that I am fully against the abomination known as slavery and am glad the North won. Do I sugarcoat history? No, it was what it was. If i could go back in time and catch the first fucker to try to sell a slave, i would. But that's pipe dream bullshit.

3: Pedophiles. Yes some do think they're not doing anything wrong. You don't accept that they are so fucked in the head that they sincerely believe that? Sure they should be shot on the spot. But you can not speak for them, unless you yourself are a pedophile. So now Your take on a subject is the one true morally acceptable approach on any subject?. Get of your high horse moron.

[hippifried]

hippifried is going to get shot up in his house?

Several things come to mind. First, I didn't know hippi owned a house. I figured his countercultural persona would have sort of steered him away from the mass hysteria of the housing market of the last several decades.

Second, are we sure that hippi doesn't have some mean old doberman waiting for any invader? Seems more like his style than some semi-automatic small penis compensating weapon.

Finally, unlike the author, I would mourn hippi's demise. Although, I bet he'd have a helluva wake. Hope I'm invited.


The odds are against it. With near certainty hippifried's life will never be seriously threatened by a home intruder. Which brings up the point: guns are very rarely used for protection. They are used to engender peace of mind. But the peace of mind afforded by a gun in your home is illusory. It comes with a cost. The cost of the illusion is increased risk of injury or fatality to family, friends and visitors to your home. Accidents, suicides, murder in a fit of anger. When there's a gun in your home, all these things are way more likely to occur than a home invader who threatens your life.

Good post, Odelay. Love you hippiefried.
Damn! So much love, & so little blood circulation where it's needed to do anything about it...:heartbroken: Gettin' old sucks, butteye'll pass on the alternative.

Back on topic:
One thing I've noticed through the years is that having guns makes you a target. Not necessarily a target of violence or governance, but the 4 high dollar items to any burglar are; cash, jewelry, guns, & prescriptions. In that order.

[broncofan]

My,
You're not a very clear-headed guy are you? What I was saying with my analogy is that the subjective belief of slaveowners and pedophiles is not relevant. You keep telling me what they thought, what they felt, what they wanted. We know what they wanted. It was not something that anyone should accept. We keep hearing fear-mongering about moral relativism from right wingers but that's what you're engaging in. You're saying that since it was not a practice seriously frowned upon they had a right to be upset if it were abolished.

You say a knife should not be conceptualized as a weapon because it also has utility in preparing food. That's very lovely, but what is this distinct utility you envision for a gun? That you can shoot it at objects and pretend those objects are human beings? Or do you try to chop vegetables with your gun?

You say you are anti-slavery, and it sounds like you are. But you're extremely generous to both slaveowners and in your last bullet point to pedophiles. I don't understand your argument. The purpose of bringing up pedophiles is to say that their belief that they are not doing anything wrong does not sanitize their actions. This was the universal principle you were supposed to take away from the analogy rather than the muddled garbage you posted.

[trish]

the 4 high dollar items to any burglar are; cash, jewelry, guns, & prescriptionsagreed. None of the four are worth killing for, whether you're the one stealing them or the who owns them. The peace of mind afforded by gun ownership is an illusion. If there is a gun in your home it is more likely to be used in a suicide, more likely to be the cause of a serious or fatal accident, more likely to be fired in anger than used to protect against a life-threatening intruder.

[broncofan]

You're so fucking dense , you just come across as stupid.

And this right here is the sentence structure and contemplative style of a supremely intelligent man. Being so smart must be frustrating.

[my my my!]

My,
You're not a very clear-headed guy are you? What I was saying with my analogy is that the subjective belief of slaveowners and pedophiles is not relevant. You keep telling me what they thought, what they felt, what they wanted. We know what they wanted. It was not something that anyone should accept. We keep hearing fear-mongering about moral relativism from right wingers but that's what you're engaging in. You're saying that since it was not a practice seriously frowned upon they had a right to be upset if it were abolished.

You say a knife should not be conceptualized as a weapon because it also has utility in preparing food. That's very lovely, but what is this distinct utility you envision for a gun? That you can shoot it at objects and pretend those objects are human beings? Or do you try to chop vegetables with your gun?

You say you are anti-slavery, and it sounds like you are. But you're extremely generous to both slaveowners and in your last bullet point to pedophiles. I don't understand your argument. The purpose of bringing up pedophiles is to say that their belief that they are not doing anything wrong does not sanitize their actions. This was the universal principle you were supposed to take away from the analogy rather than the muddled garbage you posted.

It might have seemed like muddled garbage to a simpleton such as yourself.
But I could not have made myself clearer to you.

Why is their subjective belief not relevant? Just because Broncofan says so? You're a truly mistaken if you think your standards of morality be it subjective or perceived define another person's reality and belief system. If someone sincerely, in their live reality, sincerely believe in Santa Claus, who are you to tell them otherwise? If a pedophile believes that he is not doing anything wrong and really sincerely feels that way, Broncofan's or my opinion is not going to change a damn thing.

No, I'm saying I DON'T conceptualize a knife as a weapon. To me it's just a utensil that is sharp. Just like I know what a gun can do, does not mean I fetishize it and dream about one day killing people, or pretend that beer bottles are human beings. See, that's what non gun enthusiasts don't understand. It's just a sport, hobby and security for some of us. But to people that are tired of gun violence, guns are the worst thing in the world. I do understand that people are tired of gun violence. However, I'm tired of drunk drivers, I seriously am, I lost a dear friend to a drunk driver. Do , I wish alcoholic beverages should be banned so my suffering is alleviated? No, I can handle my alcohol intake, just like I can handle my weapons responsibly. The shooters at school are the retards that ruin it for everyone else, just like a drunk driver makes other social drinkers that can handle their alcohol, look bad.

Now you also say "You're saying that since it was not a practice seriously frowned upon they had a right to be upset if it were abolished"

Yes, and I do believe they had a right to get upset. Do I think, they were correct in the overall scheme of morality? No. But , that does not change the fact they were pissed and were passionate about their way of life enough to go to war over it .

[broncofan]

Who am I to tell someone who believes in Santa Claus that Santa Claus doesn't exist? Well it's nigh impossible to prove a negative. However, the law is not indifferent when it comes to people's actions. The legislature cannot upon hearing that pedophiles feel they're engaged in victimless acts fail to pass laws to protect children now can they? What you're saying is that everyone should have a referendum on any law they happen to disagree with. That's not how our government has ever been run.

I understand that people may be very passionate about their right to engage in all sorts of heinous acts. But we do have to attempt to develop some sort of objective morality as a society or we run the risk of saying anything is permissible just because some people believe it is.

BTW, you are not going to change a pedophiles mind perhaps, but he can be put in prison. Back to the main point. If gun laws are passed and upheld by the judiciary and you try to shoot officers, that's where you end up, at best.

[broncofan]

But I could not have made myself clearer to you.

For once I believe you:D.

I'm done for the night. Good luck to you. I recommend you get rid of your guns and get a life. Sorry for my liberal snobbery. Drink beer, recycle the beer bottles, don't shoot them. Again, just recommendations with absolutely no malice intended. Or maybe I am being malicious, but you're right that we're never going to understand each other. I'm done trying for now.

[my my my!]

Who am I to tell someone who believes in Santa Claus that Santa Claus doesn't exist? Well it's nigh impossible to prove a negative. However, the law is not indifferent when it comes to people's actions. The legislature cannot upon hearing that pedophiles feel they're engaged in victimless acts fail to pass laws to protect children now can they? What you're saying is that everyone should have a referendum on any law they happen to disagree with. That's not how our government has ever been run.

I understand that people may be very passionate about their right to engage in all sorts of heinous acts. But we do have to attempt to develop some sort of objective morality as a society or we run the risk of saying anything is permissible just because some people believe it is.

BTW, you are not going to change a pedophiles mind perhaps, but he can be put in prison. Back to the main point. If gun laws are passed and upheld by the judiciary and you try to shoot officers, that's where you end up, at best.

"Well it's nigh impossible to prove a negative"
See man, just because you in your heart and mind know it's a negative, as well as I, that does not mean you and I can define that for someone else (theoretically no one knows for sure, but then we get in the realm of individual realities and we should not go there)

"The legislature cannot upon hearing that pedophiles feel they're engaged in victimless acts fail to pass laws to protect children now can they?"
I'm glad the laws are in place to protect children from pedophiles, and pedophiles are the bottom feeders in a prison system. However, that does not change the pedophile's belief that what he/she did is right (if said pedophile thinks there's nothing wrong with it), they are going to think they are wrongfully imprisoned. That is not to say prison does not make them see the error in their ways, but prison and penalties don't fix stupid all the time. Some get out of prison a changed man, and some get out the same exact pedophile as they went in (and in their mind sincerely believe it)

" But we do have to attempt to develop some sort of objective morality as a society or we run the risk of saying anything is permissible just because some people believe it is"
I agree. However, some minds can not be changed, again, if they believe their truth to be reality. The real world consequence is prison and social punishments and the like.

"If gun laws are passed and upheld by the judiciary and you try to shoot officers, that's where you end up, at best"
Yes I realize this, and I am ok for standing up for something I believe in. What I've been stating since my first post, is that without any change to the judiciary AND to the constitution, my weapons are legal.

However if some local, state or civilian agent or group decides by committee to suddenly say "you can not have x type of weapon in your possession" without first consulting the supreme court or a popular vote to re-ammend or remove the 2nd amendment, then their action is seen as a violation of my 2nd amendment right.

Hey , if gun control advocates get their way and get the 2nd amendment repealed, cool. I'll be fully aware of the change. I'll give up my weapons if that's what the new amendment/constitution says.

If those types come into my house, trying to remove something that is still legal according to the constitution and supreme court. Then they will be met with what I consider an appropriate reaction (by my beliefs).

For me an Appropriate reaction if the 2nd amendment is still in effect would be, to kindly tell them that my house is protected by the 2nd amendment, if they refuse to leave and insist on taking my weapons, I will react accordingly. Perhaps through calling a lawyer, maybe get the president's attention through media or some other venue. If they still refuse, and STEP inside my home without a warrant, then I would consider this an illegal invasion of my home and unnecessary and would then proceed to the really dramatic option, which would be to shoot the intruder.

You call me crazy for that? I'm ok with that. :D Does not mean I agree with you.

[fred41]

In response to the gun deaths compared to other things like cars or cigarettes there is one thing different only one is designed to kill as its only purpose. And that one is guns it has no other purpose you can't drive it, smoke it, cook with it, or do anything else with it you can shoot and nothing else, either responsibly or to kill.

I don't think I have anything "on topic" to add to this thread...I've already stated my position on guns in several threads.

Just a short rant while it's on my mind.

Cigarettes serve no "purpose" other than to get you to buy more cigarettes. They are a poisonous commodity that does nothing other than get you hooked on an item that, more often than not, either slowly destroys your health or kills you outright. Any pleasure a person derives from smoking them is purely psychological and usually based on the mind's response to an addiction. They don't really create an actual high as we know it...and I've seen far more people (including friends and family members) die slowly (sometimes quickly) from cigarettes than guns. Period.

I wouldn't use them as a comparison to guns because guns do actually serve a defensive purpose in life. They are an actual tool. How that tool is used and regulated is up to us....
...but cigarettes are just garbage.
As a matter of fact - if my only choice was to completely outlaw the production and sale of either guns or cigarettes.....it wouldn't even be close.

rant over ...sorry to derail the thread.

The two items have nothing to do with each other, so no sense in using them as a comparison either positive or negative.

[my my my!]

I don't think I have anything "on topic" to add to this thread...I've already stated my position on guns in several threads.

Just a short rant while it's on my mind.

Cigarettes serve no "purpose" other than to get you to buy more cigarettes. They are a poisonous commodity that does nothing other than get you hooked on an item that, more often than not, either slowly destroys your health or kills you outright. Any pleasure a person derives from smoking them is purely psychological and usually based on the mind's response to an addiction. They don't really create an actual high as we know it...and I've seen far more people (including friends and family members) die slowly (sometimes quickly) from cigarettes than guns. Period.

I wouldn't use them as a comparison to guns because guns do actually serve a defensive purpose in life. They are an actual tool. How that tool is used and regulated is up to us....
...but cigarettes are just garbage.
As a matter of fact - if my only choice was to completely outlaw the production and sale of either guns or cigarettes.....it wouldn't even be close.

rant over ...sorry to derail the thread.

The two items have nothing to do with each other, so no sense in using them as a comparison either positive or negative.

You're not derailing the thread. What you said is very relevant. And some of the people posting in this thread will disagree.

Cigarettes are a KNOWN killing object(albeit slowly) with an addictive substance and with dubious psychological effects that is still allowed for sale anywhere in the United States. Knowing full well that It kills thousands of people through a prolonged agonizing death.

But people here will defend that and say "but cigarettes aren't a thing that was MEANT to kill, like guns".

Personally I'm ok with people smoking, it's their thing (although I could argue their second hand smoke is killing me lol) just like I'm ok with owning weapons and I THINK they should be fine with that (some aren't of course lol).

:)

[my my my!]

Unless you are active-duty military or law enforcement, you do not have a Colt M4, which is an automatic rifle. You may own one of Colt's civilian AR-15 models, but the M4 is the military version, which you do not have.

Weird thing to lie about, since you could actually own Colt's LESOCOM carbine, which looks remarkably like the M4. But if you're claiming to own an honest-to-god M4, then you're lying.

Nope , not lying about it. My COLT m4 is actually stamped COLT M4.
I do agree that it is a semi-auto version and that's all I said it was. I even told volkov that I only own semi-autos and bolt actions.

I do agree that I do NOT own a military version of the M4, full auto , with a switch to burst fire. But mine is definitely a COLT M4.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/03/21/colt-m4-carbine-lesocom/

It took almost two decades, but Colt Defense is finally offering a consumer-legal M4 Carbine. The Colt LESOCOM is very close to the M4A1 that Colt manufactures for the military.

M4A1 is what you're thinking. And I never claimed to own a M4A1

[fivekatz]

I don't have anything to add to the specific issue that started this thread, but I have noticed, and not just on HA that guns and politics in the USA produces a frenzy of debate (if that is what it is) more than any other domestic topic I can think of; more than abortion, gay marriage, drugs, or really important things like education and jobs. In less than 24 hours this thread is already on page 7... why?Actually it is just the wedge issue of the moment. We have a few go-to wedge issues that can always be relied on in the US political discourse to take folks eye of the ball on issues like economic inequity, unemployment, global warming and corporate crime.

Newtown simply made gun safety / gun regulation / gun control such a hot third rail. For the better part of a decade plus most American's have avoided the topic. But some of other favorites to distract the public while likes of Jamie Dimon and the Koch Brothers do their thing include:

Abortion : Right to Life
Death Penalty : Right to Kill
Health Care : Right to live only if you have a job and your employer provides insurance.
Defense of Marriage Act: Right to be homophobic

But Newtown really woke this one up because these were little babies in a mass shooting.

And the demographics of America are changing under the feet of the GOP and they think they lost to Obama because Romney flipped to more moderate policies once he got their nomination rather realizing the only reason Romney did not lose by more was because he abandoned some of his more conservative stances in the general election.

[volkov2006]

I don't think I have anything "on topic" to add to this thread...I've already stated my position on guns in several threads.

Just a short rant while it's on my mind.

Cigarettes serve no "purpose" other than to get you to buy more cigarettes. They are a poisonous commodity that does nothing other than get you hooked on an item that, more often than not, either slowly destroys your health or kills you outright. Any pleasure a person derives from smoking them is purely psychological and usually based on the mind's response to an addiction. They don't really create an actual high as we know it...and I've seen far more people (including friends and family members) die slowly (sometimes quickly) from cigarettes than guns. Period.

I wouldn't use them as a comparison to guns because guns do actually serve a defensive purpose in life. They are an actual tool. How that tool is used and regulated is up to us....
...but cigarettes are just garbage.
As a matter of fact - if my only choice was to completely outlaw the production and sale of either guns or cigarettes.....it wouldn't even be close.

rant over ...sorry to derail the thread.

The two items have nothing to do with each other, so no sense in using them as a comparison either positive or negative.

I was not using them as a comparison I was responding to my my my who first made the comparison take that up with him.

I was meaning to say that cigarettes do not necessarily serve a purpose but that it is not a 100% that you will die from them you may get ill but not necessarily die, gun on the other hand we created with one purpose in mind unlike cigarettes. Guns we created to kill only not to chop wood or cook food.

Cigarettes may have served a purpose in days past just like heroine and cocaine were used by doctors to treat illness. Although cigarettes may not serve that purpose anymore there were crated for that purpose. Guns were not created to help over come any human trial, they were created to kill and only that.

Knives, axes, cars, tools, saws, forks, scissors, and shovels were created to serve a purpose that help us in our daily lives. They all have been used to kill people, although the amount of people they have killed has gone down since the industrial revolution, and now only number in the hundreds yearly. On the other hand guns were created to kill ONLY, and those deaths number in the 10s of thousands.

Guns were not made to hunt, or to shoot targets, guns were made to kill humans first and final. Only until the recent history have they been used for sport shooting and recreation. And until about the 1400s were they used for hunting because it was better to use a bow. Also there are other less violent was to protect your family including non lethal means, pepper spray, tasers, and others. You don't need to kill just to protect your family from being killed. Would you kill someone who just broke into your house to save his life from the weather, or someone who just stole a little bit of food to prevent from starvation. Also most guns in criminal hands right now are weapons bought by responsible people and stolen from them, THAT IS A FACT!

That is the point as to why guns are not a good thing.

[fred41]

Although cigarettes may not serve that purpose anymore there were crated for that purpose.

They were not created for that purpose.

otherwise give me a credible link.

[fred41]

...and guns don't just kill either. They can protect...they can defend...they can create a psychological defensive position....and they don't always automatically kill - depending upon the ammunition used - one of the purposes of regulation.

[Skylancer81]

Another very good read.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/02/37799-must-read-columbine-survivor-pens-open-letter-to-obama-about-gun-control-initiatives/

A Columbine tragedy survivor. Spot on.

Proves the point a criminal and or a murder will either jump through all the hoops or bypass them and break whatever law you put in place. Gun control hurts law abiding citizens no one else.

[fivekatz]

It is rather amazing to me that those who oppose gun regulations argue that any regulation will not first, stop all senseless killing (no shit) and take the argument to the absurd which is that the First Arab, Communist, Pagan President of the USA will be leading 18 wheelers into everyone's neighborhood to collect every single fire arm in the country.

Registration of every weapon (just like a car), a license to use (just like a car) and restriction on capacity (just like a car) will do just fine.

And then while we are at it we can deal with the shameful lack of attention we have paid to mental health in the country.

hardly anyone wants to eliminate firearms from the USA and most of those who think it wouldn't be a bad thing realize we can't.

But the situation is not in control. Firearms kill more occupants of their homes from suicide or accident than they strike down thieves or assailants. High capacity magazines are used far more in crime than defense and have no sporting purpose in hunting. Want to be real hunter, use a bow and arrow like Bo Jackson.

Prohibition never works and last I saw nobody in America pretends that there will be a prohibition of firearms in the US. But registration, license and for that matter liability insurance wouldn't be a bad idea.

Chris Rock went a great rant once how he thought a bullet should cost $5000. His theory was that when one guy got really pissed at another he'd say, "I'd blow your f'ing brains out motherf'er if I could afford it!"

[robertlouis]

Chris Rock went a great rant once how he thought a bullet should cost $5000. His theory was that when one guy got really pissed at another he'd say, "I'd blow your f'ing brains out motherf'er if I could afford it!"

That's a very interesting analogy. Don't know if it's the same in the US, but here in the UK successive governments have consistently raised taxes on tobacco products well beyond the rate of inflation, to the extent that a pack of 20 now costs between £6 and £7 between $10 and $12, and it has made some impact on the incidence of smoking.

Perhaps if guns and ammunition were treated similarly, their ownership and use would drop too. Feed the family or that new assault rifle...hmmm.

[fred41]

Another very good read.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/02/37799-must-read-columbine-survivor-pens-open-letter-to-obama-about-gun-control-initiatives/

A Columbine tragedy survivor. Spot on.

Proves the point a criminal and or a murder will either jump through all the hoops or bypass them and break whatever law you put in place. Gun control hurts law abiding citizens no one else.

Because he was a victim (according to this) at the Columbine slaughter, I gave this letter some extra respect and started reading it....but being present at a slaughter does not add intelligence ...and I'm sorry, but I have a hard time getting past his simplistic protestations against background checks.

[fivekatz]

That's a very interesting analogy. Don't know if it's the same in the US, but here in the UK successive governments have consistently raised taxes on tobacco products well beyond the rate of inflation, to the extent that a pack of 20 now costs between £6 and £7 between $10 and $12, and it has made some impact on the incidence of smoking.

Perhaps if guns and ammunition were treated similarly, their ownership and use would drop too. Feed the family or that new assault rifle...hmmm.Varies by state by state in the US but in California not only do the taxes now make a pack of 20 smokes just under $5 US, by the state invested millions in anti-smoking campaigns. And while I can't remember the specifics now (aging sucks) there was recently an article that estimates that the reduction in smoking due to restrictions in where people can smoke, high taxation and the campaign (print, radio, TV) against smoking that the State had seen a 25x return on their advertising investment and saved 100's of M of $ for individuals and insurance companies.

But except at the state level right now taxation in the US is not likely to ever pass through this congress which will site in objection to taxation while also understanding that higher taxation of firearms and ammunition would piss off on of their most trusted lobbies.

But increasing cost + education certainly has worked with smoking in the US and particularly California which hopped on this in the late 80's. In fact my only trip to the UK was in 2002 and I was surprised how easy it was to smoke in public still since we had so many bans in my home state. OTOH I paid no attention to price since I had quit the habit in 1998 due to health concerns.

[trish]

Guns are DESIGNED to kill. You can put them to other uses. You use them to threaten. You can use them to hammer nails. But they are designed to kill.

Cigarettes were designed for smoking. They are nicotine delivery systems. They also happen to be carcinogenic and causes of lung and heart disease. But that is not what they are designed to do. Still, it's not a good idea to smoke, nor to give government subsidies to tobacco companies nor to make a constitutional amendment that guarantees that every citizen has a right to smoke. Note, not having a constitutional guarantee is distinct from having an all out ban. Even though we don't have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the legal right to smoke, plenty of people legally smoke.

Cars are designed to transport people from place to place. They can be used for other things. You can make your home in a car. You can use it murder pedestrians. Driving entails risks to others. That's why we require drivers to take a test, obtain a license and buy insurance. There's no constitutional guarantee for car ownership. There's no right to own a car. Still lot's of Americans own cars.

Why do we need a constitutional guarantee to own a semi-automatic weapon? We don't. The 2nd Amendment clearly applies to muzzle loading muskets. There's a hundred years or more of precedent for extending the interpretation to manually operated (non-semi-automatic and non-automatic) hunting rifles and shotguns. There is no need to extend it further. If you need to fire thirty rounds in less than a minute to hit your target, then you aren't doing it right. Try aiming.

Look we don't need to ban semi-automatic weapons, but we can interpret the Constitution rationally so that not all citizens are guaranteed the right to buy them.

[my my my!]

I think I'll do just that. You're clearly someone with whom it's simply impossible to have a rational argument, with your bizarre view that your ownership and use of items whose sole purpose is to maim and kill is infinitely more important than the right of innocent citizens not to get mown down ever more frequently in mass shootings simply because idiots like you will brook no infringement on your so-called right to carry weapons. Wallow in your self-righteousness as the bodies pile up.

What a total fuck-up.

I'm glad I live in the UK where we have I guess a pretty draconian attitude to gun ownership. Oh, and why is that? Because on the blessedly rare occasions that we have a mass shooting (3 times in 60 years), we are proactive and make the ownership and use of firearms increasingly tougher.

And our rate of gun deaths relative to the USA, taking population into account (UK 60m/USA 300M) ? 2%. 2 FUCKING PERCENT!!!! Read and absorb, assuming you're capable of doing so. Actually, I don't believe you're stupid, I just think that you have a blind spot the size of Saturn where guns are concerned.

Your country has a disease. And you're one of the bacteria. Moron.

And you are a self admitted ass Kisser who grovels at all the ladies here. Really classy act you are. Grow some balls first before coming into a conversation about American Gun Rights and Gun Control. Your opinion is worthless. Why? Because you can't do anything about it. I can, my vote actually will matter, and I will accept the outcome whatever it may be. You on the other hand, are just a rambling Brit.

You really care about people dying "unjustly"? Go donate all your money to an African charity. After all those are human lives worthy of being saved right? I'm pretty sure you wont do that. Show that you care through your wallet, and post your receipts here. Show some proof. Accept the challenge? Or is what is going on in America more important than the drought stricken areas of Africa?

Stop worrying about what is going in America or move over here so you can actually influence gun control through a vote. Other than that, what you say does not matter, really.

That's like Americans trying to convince the UK to get rid of your monarchy isn't it? You welcome or reject the opinions, but the truth is Americans don't have a say in the matter.

[fivekatz]

Guns are DESIGNED to kill. You can put them to other uses. You use them to threaten. You can use them to hammer nails. But they are designed to kill.

Cigarettes were designed for smoking. They are nicotine delivery systems. They also happen to be carcinogenic and causes of lung and heart disease. But that is not what they are designed to do. Still, it's not a good idea to smoke, nor to give government subsidies to tobacco companies nor to make a constitutional amendment that guarantees that every citizen has a right to smoke. Note, not having a constitutional guarantee is distinct from having an all out ban. Even though we don't have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the legal right to smoke, plenty of people legally smoke.

Cars are designed to transport people from place to place. They can be used for other things. You can make your home in a car. You can use it murder pedestrians. Driving entails risks to others. That's why we require drivers to take a test, obtain a license and buy insurance. There's no constitutional guarantee for car ownership. There's no right to own a car. Still lot's of Americans own cars.

Why do we need a constitutional guarantee to own a semi-automatic weapon? We don't. The 2nd Amendment clearly applies to muzzle loading muskets. There's a hundred years or more of precedent for extending the interpretation to manually operated (non-semi-automatic and non-automatic) hunting rifles and shotguns. There is no need to extend it further. If you need to fire thirty rounds in less than a minute to hit your target, then you aren't doing it right. Try aiming.

Look we don't need to ban semi-automatic weapons, but we can interpret the Constitution rationally so that not all citizens are guaranteed the right to buy them.I agree. It is a document of guidance an intent of principle and wasn't and isn't perfect. The 2nd Amendment after all was part of a series a Bill of Rights to amend the original constitution.

The original document plus the Bill of Rights did not grant women the right to vote or prohibit the sale and ownership of other human beings. We amended to oversights.

Most recently the conservative SCOTUS equated money with speech and again affirmed corporations as individuals in regards to speech, while our laws exempt them from the same stringent debtor requirements that US put into law for individuals in 2005.

So SCOTUS seems to play fancy and loose with this "sacred" document. Clearly the Founders had no fucking idea that drones, nuclear warheads, automatic weapons, chemical weapons or other forms of mass destruction would exist when they suggested that the population should bear similar weapons to the government to form a militia.

Nobody has ever been able to or tried to prove that the lack of registration, license, restriction of either the sale or ownership of firearms up to and including assault weapons (which are by definition weapons of mass destruction , thanks for the jazzy line DICK Cheney) have ever saved more lives, made domestic tranquility or democracy more safe but 12,000 people a year are dying.

Slow the death toll by creating safety laws that require registration, license and restrict the sale of assault weapons and create harsh penalties for violators, both sellers and owners who do not follow that code.

Americans have the right to bear arms but not without restriction, any more than I have the pursuit to happniess if what makes me happy is pissing on your lawn.

[trish]

In any discussion, no one is worthless who can present a persuasive argument. Doesn't matter if they get a vote or not. You only need to sway the votes of those who listen and decide. One would've thought that was obvious.

[fivekatz]

In any discussion, no one is worthless who can present a persuasive argument. Doesn't matter if they get a vote or not. You only need to sway the votes of those who listen and decide. One would've thought that was obvious.Particularly in a forum like this.

If some of us find the view of those who view us from a far uncomfortable, perhaps it is because they don't understand us or perhaps it is they understand us all too well.

[my my my!]

Particularly in a forum like this.

If some of us find the view of those who view us from a far uncomfortable, perhaps it is because they don't understand us or perhaps it is they understand us all too well.

Very well said.

The really heated arguments like Death Penalty , Gun Control , Abortion , Gay Marriage/Rights always get heated discussions because people are pretty set in their ways of thinking. Somebody on the other end might not be keen to agree , ever. And politicians know if they do something to favor one side, they are going to upset the other side. It's a risk they might have to take

I agree with everyone's right to their opinion. If Trish, volkov and others want more gun control, stricter gun regulations they are welcome to vote , petition, manifest, gather in public places for their desires to come to fruition.Just like I and other gun owners are welcome to do the same.

I thought we all understood that. To those that I have insulted, I sincerely apologize, and I have been insulted first by others as well.

Politics and Religion board:
Two topics to avoid in light company, this board was especially created for you to "tote the party line" and voice your opinions, thoughts and beliefs on whatever tickles your fancy or currently gets your goat. All political & religions threads BELONG HERE.

I personally am new to this particular section of the forum, and interpreted the "Two topics to avoid in light company" to mean that discussion could get pretty heated to include some insults. To me "moron" and "asshole" are said in the same context , and you all might not feel the same. I will refrain from using that type of language in the future.

[robertlouis]

And you are a self admitted ass Kisser who grovels at all the ladies here. Really classy act you are. Grow some balls first before coming into a conversation about American Gun Rights and Gun Control. Your opinion is worthless. Why? Because you can't do anything about it. I can, my vote actually will matter, and I will accept the outcome whatever it may be. You on the other hand, are just a rambling Brit.

You really care about people dying "unjustly"? Go donate all your money to an African charity. After all those are human lives worthy of being saved right? I'm pretty sure you wont do that. Show that you care through your wallet, and post your receipts here. Show some proof. Accept the challenge? Or is what is going on in America more important than the drought stricken areas of Africa?

Stop worrying about what is going in America or move over here so you can actually influence gun control through a vote. Other than that, what you say does not matter, really.

That's like Americans trying to convince the UK to get rid of your monarchy isn't it? You welcome or reject the opinions, but the truth is Americans don't have a say in the matter.

My my, my my my. Is that really the best you can do? My views are invalid because I don't have a vote so you can shut them down, just like that. Wouldn't you have been a wow to have around during the battle for civil rights. Balls? It takes some to get into a debate with someone who's probably polishing his cock, sorry, I meant *ahem*, "assault rifle" while he's reading this

And as for my byline, I forgot that some people just don't understand the concept of irony. Oh well, can't be helped. And as it happens I do contribute on a monthly basis to a charity based locally here whose organisers are personal friends so that I know my money is going directly to build schools and provide education to deprived parts of Kenya and Uganda. I'll say no more on that subject; I wouldn't want them and their fine work to become sullied by association with your sordid and infantile mind games.

And in the meantime, I note that you haven't taken issue with a single one of the points that I raised, but prefer to deal in the currency of insult. Your prerogative. But let me make it clear that neither I nor any others on HA who support the notion of reasonable gun control in the US have suggested at any time placing a prohibition on the ownership and use of firearms by private citizens. I recognise that at a practical level that simply isn't feasible, and also that within American culture it is entirely accepted. I respect that.

The debate should be about what constitutes "reasonable control" in this context. The biggest obstacle to conducting that debate appears to be that the very notion of any sort of control, however slight, is greeted by the gun lobby and their cheerleaders with hysterical and non-listening opposition.

I don't want you to lose your guns. I'm sure that you're a responsible gun owner and use your arsenal responsibly. But doesn't it make sense for further testing of psychological suitability and the curbing of uncontrolled sales at gun shows to be introduced so that you can avoid further tragedies like Newtown? Is that really too much to ask?

And finally, as a UK republican - which bears no relation in any way whatsoever to the GOP - I'd welcome anything short of armed insurrection to rid us of our anachronistic monarchy. The UK, especially England, is riddled with class issues, and it starts with the royals. All help gratefully received!

[fivekatz]

Very well said.

The really heated arguments like Death Penalty , Gun Control , Abortion , Gay Marriage/Rights always get heated discussions because people are pretty set in their ways of thinking. Somebody on the other end might not be keen to agree , ever. And politicians know if they do something to favor one side, they are going to upset the other side. It's a risk they might have to take

I agree with everyone's right to their opinion. If Trish, volkov and others want more gun control, stricter gun regulations they are welcome to vote , petition, manifest, gather in public places for their desires to come to fruition.Just like I and other gun owners are welcome to do the same.

I thought we all understood that. To those that I have insulted, I sincerely apologize, and I have been insulted first by others as well.

Politics and Religion board:
Two topics to avoid in light company, this board was especially created for you to "tote the party line" and voice your opinions, thoughts and beliefs on whatever tickles your fancy or currently gets your goat. All political & religions threads BELONG HERE.

I personally am new to this particular section of the forum, and interpreted the "Two topics to avoid in light company" to mean that discussion could get pretty heated to include some insults. To me "moron" and "asshole" are said in the same context , and you all might not feel the same. I will refrain from using that type of language in the future.
Avoiding calling folks morons and assholes will tend to make a bit less defensive and perhaps a bit more focused on the rest of the points you are trying to make.

Civil but aggressive debate is a part of free speech. One of the greatest of the Founding Fathers pissed off lots of people, he knew it, he went as far as to say that there would be no great monuments ever built to him, and you can tour Washington, DC and you will find no monument to John Adams.

He was wise enough to know when it was time to write the Declaration of Independence to pick a less polarizing figure in Thomas Jefferson to write it,

But he did not leave the stage or the debate and did his best while not always succeeding to not alienate others to point they would not listen to his arguments.

Which on balance aside from the Alien and Sedetion Act were amongst the best of the first 50 years of this republic.

So while you and I may not agree on what types of weapons should be commonly owned and sold and how that process should be governed, I welcome your opinions and applaud the applaud the tone of this last post to encourage the continued discussion of this issue, which is whether you are a citizen of the US or a member of this forum that is a citizen of another part of the world has caught all our attention in face of so much carnage in the last few years, punctuate by the execution of those babies by assault weapon in the hands of a mental ill citizen.

Seriously, good post, cheers!

Disagrement done agreeably is the hallmark of democracy throughout the world.

[my my my!]

My my, my my my. Is that really the best you can do? My views are invalid because I don't have a vote so you can shut them down, just like that. Wouldn't you have been a wow to have around during the battle for civil rights. Balls? It takes some to get into a debate with someone who's probably polishing his cock, sorry, I meant *ahem*, "assault rifle" while he's reading this

And as for my byline, I forgot that some people just don't understand the concept of irony. Oh well, can't be helped. And as it happens I do contribute on a monthly basis to a charity based locally here whose organisers are personal friends so that I know my money is going directly to build schools and provide education to deprived parts of Kenya and Uganda. I'll say no more on that subject; I wouldn't want them and their fine work to become sullied by association with your sordid and infantile mind games.

And in the meantime, I note that you haven't taken issue with a single one of the points that I raised, but prefer to deal in the currency of insult. Your prerogative. But let me make it clear that neither I nor any others on HA who support the notion of reasonable gun control in the US have suggested at any time placing a prohibition on the ownership and use of firearms by private citizens. I recognise that at a practical level that simply isn't feasible, and also that within American culture it is entirely accepted. I respect that.

The debate should be about what constitutes "reasonable control" in this context. The biggest obstacle to conducting that debate appears to be that the very notion of any sort of control, however slight, is greeted by the gun lobby and their cheerleaders with hysterical and non-listening opposition.

I don't want you to lose your guns. I'm sure that you're a responsible gun owner and use your arsenal responsibly. But doesn't it make sense for further testing of psychological suitability and the curbing of uncontrolled sales at gun shows to be introduced so that you can avoid further tragedies like Newtown? Is that really too much to ask?

And finally, as a UK republican - which bears no relation in any way whatsoever to the GOP - I'd welcome anything short of armed insurrection to rid us of our anachronistic monarchy. The UK, especially England, is riddled with class issues, and it starts with the royals. All help gratefully received!

Your very first post directed at me was an Insult. Sorry, sincerely. I dished it out like you did.

I'm not saying I WILL or CAN shut down your vote, It's just your vote or opinion essentially does not matter here (in america, HA is a public forum and I appreciate your opinion that way). America (our politicians) only listens to foreigners when it comes to America potentially or actually losing money. If you really want to make a difference, you can start a movement where Brits boycott travel to the USA to show solidarity with the families of the victims of Newport. Or simply because you no longer feel safe traveling to America.

Calling me a bacteria is not going to get gun control passed Robert. You might be under that impression that as a Brit you might sway a vote here in America. You can have all the opinions you want about abortion in the USA, death penalty in the USA, gay marriage in the USA etc. As long as you don't or can not contribute something real that will matter in real life to those issues then your opinion is essentially not valid, right?

Do you see it differently?

I'm not being mean, I just don't think people in other countries can influence issues in other countries just by simply stating an opinion as opposed to doing something that would influence that issue in real life.

Sorry for Insults earlier Robert, I refrain from such behaviour in this discussion for the sake of civility and respect to you.

[Jericho]

I Want, I Want, I Want.
Sometimes, an adult has to so No, you can't have. for the good of the child! :shrug

[trish]

Please, please, please may I have it? <3

[Jericho]

Please, please, please may I have it? <3

Always my dove...And twice on Sundays! :salad

[brickcitybrother]

I'm not reading ALL of the responses. Both sides make too simplistic arguments. Its either we will live in a utopia when all guns are banned (just like we do now with drugs being banned) or its everyone should have a gun (just like Adam Lanza and his mom). My own opinion lies in the middle of this with one caveat...

35,909 individuals died in motor vehicle accidents in 2010^ (last year for good stats so far) at that same time individuals died at the barrel of a firearm 15,611* (this includes those killed by law enforcement and in self-defense). The real number is closer to 9,960** The overwhelming majority were killed by handguns - 6009, with only 358 killed by rifles of any kind.* Six times any individuals were stabbed to death and more people were killed by bare hands than any kind of rifle.* But we have no problem with all of the rules regarding getting a driver's license. Conversely, more people were killed by knives and hands (and the gov't doesn't regulate those 'killing implements').

The real truth is that the debate is ALL WRONG. The media and the give't wants you to focus on the implements - the guns. The never ever want you to think about WHY people are being shot.

Yes - there needs to be serious rules regarding getting and owning guns!
No - banning guns is not an answer (unless you like the idea of only law breakers having access

We should looking at a bigger picture as to why greater deaths Medical Mistakes (100k to 180k deaths per year in the US***, Auto Accidents (almost 40k **), Cancer, Obseity, etc. are not a bigger concern. How many of you think you're at risk for being killed by a gun? How many of you have had a close close with a shooter? How many of you have had a close call while driving? How many of you will be in hospital in the next year? Worried about the cover-up of medical malpractice that occurs every day? How's your health ... did your dad pass away because of being shot ... or a medical condition (that could have been diagnosed earlier and treated successfully).

Keep letting the debate be about something that not a real issue ... so that they can slip the real issues by you.

Nuff Said!


This was written in 9 minutes on a rant - excuse typos.






^ CLICK HERE (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf)
* Click HERE (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls)
** Click Here (http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_by_firearms.xls)
*** Click Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_error#cite_note-pmid7503827-10)

[broncofan]

The analogies to cars and medical malpractice don't even withstand the mildest scrutiny.

Every year millions of people undergo life-saving treatments and have surgery and the risk of death, while small in each instance, is going to add up on the aggregate. Millions of people drive cars and they need to in order to live a modern lifestyle which means living an unwalkable distance from where they work. Before airbags and seatbelts became a virtual mandate there were thousands of unnecessary deaths a year. In fact, under the Reagan administration as I've said before, the Department of Transportation misunderstood its mandate and did not want to burden car manufacturers in the name of safety.

Further, if you look at the regulatory framework in the medical field, doctors are not immunized from liability the way the gun manufacturers are. Have you heard of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act? It provides broader protection from products liability for gun manufacturers than drug companies have under Comment K of the Second Restatement of Torts. Comment k was included in the restatement of the law based on the understanding that some drugs had great risks but even greater benefits. They were therefore labeled, unavoidably dangerous. Comment K has subsequently been stripped of its protective power for drug manufacturers because it was superfluous. In short, risk-utility analysis (the previous standard) if applied correctly, accounts for this category of so-called unavoidably dangerous products.

What this all means is that big pharma is a heavily regulated industry and companies are susceptible to lawsuits even when they're creating drugs to unclog your arteries or treat cancer. Doctors do not have a good faith defense to malpractice and are held up to professional standards regardless of intent, as they should be. Gun manufacturers, on the other hand, have virtual immunity from suit even for creative actions such as negligent marketing, which would allow them to be sued for directing their advertisement of assault weapons to criminals.

Finally, to hammer home the final point. People need some form of transport just to live in urban areas. People need medical care and prescription drugs. The argument for the necessity of guns is far weaker and almost makes this entire exercise pointless because it's so intuitive.

The PLCAA-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
Just a wiki, but why don't you see why Congress saw fit to prevent accountability in the marketplace. Immunity from suit.

Comment K of the Restatement-http://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/13/

Not a great article on comment k imo, or how it has been interpreted subsequently, but it does demonstrate that drug manufacturers are far more accountable than gun manufacturers in products liability law.

[volkov2006]

They were not created for that purpose.

otherwise give me a credible link.

Cigarettes may not have been created for the purpose but they use tobacco that was used by doctors, tobacco can cause illness and death just like cigarettes. Also how do guns protect and defend BY KILLING!

Also almost all ammunition is used to kill, yes you can just wound, Unless everyone uses rubber bullets the lethal variety is more available. Also if you know anything of biology, the area of the human body to just wound is actually quite small. The torso has most of the vital organs, the head has the brain, the legs have the femoral artery, you hit that and the person loses conciseness in a few seconds and dead in 1 minute.

And any round no matter how big, small, or what ever the gun how ever big or small can kill any person from a 1 year old to a 114 year old.

Also if you want it for protecting for your family to prevent them being killed, why should you be able to kill another person from another family. And if you are not ready to kill why would you get a gun there are less lethal devices that are down played because "Only real men have guns, and if you want to protect your family you must kill, It is the 'Murican dream"

[volkov2006]

I'm not reading ALL of the responses. Both sides make too simplistic arguments. Its either we will live in a utopia when all guns are banned (just like we do now with drugs being banned) or its everyone should have a gun (just like Adam Lanza and his mom). My own opinion lies in the middle of this with one caveat...

35,909 individuals died in motor vehicle accidents in 2010^ (last year for good stats so far) at that same time individuals died at the barrel of a firearm 15,611* (this includes those killed by law enforcement and in self-defense). The real number is closer to 9,960** The overwhelming majority were killed by handguns - 6009, with only 358 killed by rifles of any kind.* Six times any individuals were stabbed to death and more people were killed by bare hands than any kind of rifle.* But we have no problem with all of the rules regarding getting a driver's license. Conversely, more people were killed by knives and hands (and the gov't doesn't regulate those 'killing implements').

The real truth is that the debate is ALL WRONG. The media and the give't wants you to focus on the implements - the guns. The never ever want you to think about WHY people are being shot.

Yes - there needs to be serious rules regarding getting and owning guns!
No - banning guns is not an answer (unless you like the idea of only law breakers having access

We should looking at a bigger picture as to why greater deaths Medical Mistakes (100k to 180k deaths per year in the US***, Auto Accidents (almost 40k **), Cancer, Obseity, etc. are not a bigger concern. How many of you think you're at risk for being killed by a gun? How many of you have had a close close with a shooter? How many of you have had a close call while driving? How many of you will be in hospital in the next year? Worried about the cover-up of medical malpractice that occurs every day? How's your health ... did your dad pass away because of being shot ... or a medical condition (that could have been diagnosed earlier and treated successfully).

Keep letting the debate be about something that not a real issue ... so that they can slip the real issues by you.

Nuff Said!


This was written in 9 minutes on a rant - excuse typos.






^ CLICK HERE (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf)
* Click HERE (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls)
** Click Here (http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_by_firearms.xls)
*** Click Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_error#cite_note-pmid7503827-10)

One thing the car accidents are just that ACCIDENTS! They were not intended. Medical mistakes are a thing that happens, most of the time it is terminally ill patients as a last ditch effort to save their live and doctors always tell the patient and the family there is always a chance that you can die. Obesity is mostly the persons choice and the government can not tell people when and what they can't eat to force them to make them skinny, others it is in their genetic code and then no matter what they will be obese. Cancer would be cured if we stopped sending all of the new science field students to work on the new iPhone, just so we can have a jack on the bottom, or new tablets when laptops work just fine, we would probably have cancer solved by now.

Although with guns, some are accidents (probably about 5-10%). The rest are split between police and murders (90-95%). And in most cases the police need to kill because the person has a gun him/herself. The other part is conscious decisions to kill.

Car accidents are not planed in 99% of the time, medical mistakes are a risk we all take with any medical care to keep us alive and is not planned at all, unless the doctor is a psychopath. Gun deaths on the other hand if any one take a gun to use to kill it is a decision that they made, is not an accident or a risk to keep us alive because of an illness or an accident outside of our control.

[fivekatz]

Brickcitybrother, you bring up some good points as far as other things in the world that should be of concern. But that does not change the on-going debate in US about sensible regulation, registration and licensing of firearms.

Auto safety is an interesting topic to bring up. For the longest time the lobbies for auto manufactures and the auto makers themselves always claim that the carnage on the highways was human error and not the product. But after years of infighting safety standards were applied such as seat belts, air bags, better bumpers, better side body construction, superior brakes, break away steering columns were added and the fatalities per capita were radically reduced. Not eliminated reduced.

Then there is the issue of cancer and how many more people a year it kills than guns do and if one looks at what we spend on cancer research as a government versus what we spend on our military that too is shameful.

While idealistically I would love to see us become a society without guns, that is not going to happen, any more than we were going to ban cars.

So what I suggest is we treat the guns just like cars. You need to register it, you need a license to operate it and your license to operate will be controlled by your first passing a simple test just like you would to operate a car and it would be limited to what you as a citizen need to operate.

Now there aren't good reasons for the average citizen to own an assault weapon, so just like the average driver does not have a license to operate a commercial 18 wheeler, the average citizen would not have the a license to operate a assault weapon. Without a license, one should not be allowed to register their assault weapon and since registration could take place at the time of sale, assault weapons would only be sold to those who can show occupational need for assault weapons.

That little bit was just spit balling. But your car analogy was a good chance to show how industry argues a point to distract (people kill people not guns - cars don't kill - drivers error does).

[broncofan]

Total death figures can be helpful but the other components to consider are this. What effort is required in each case to reduce the number of deaths? Cancer kills millions of people but it has been exceedingly difficult to come up with effective treatments for all of its different manifestations. The research effort continues and money spent on cancer research is still money well spent. Cars? From decade to decade they do get safer. No more Corvair impaling people with the steering column. No more three wheel motorcycles that flip over when turned. SUVs are less likely to flip because manufacturers have been sued and responded by building safer vehicles.

You also cannot look at total number of people killed by an implement without considering its utility. This is common sense. Comparing the number of deaths from transport to the number of deaths from a firearm is braindead unless you can greatly reduce the risk in our transportation system without making automobiles less useful. I don't think any reasonable person could believe that the harm to commerce caused by disallowing civilians to own assault weapons would somehow be similar to the threat of getting rid of highways and cars.

Gun manufacturers have gotten a form of legal immunity that serves no good legal or public policy purpose. Drugs are safer because drug manufacturers are liable for millions every year. Why should guns be shielded and not drugs? You want to encourage the development of prescription treatments for hard to cure diseases and discourage the development of equipment that facilitates mass murder.

Anyhow, it is tremendously disturbing that this guy was able to get his hands on assault weaponry.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/21/17046951-feds-say-neo-nazi-with-guns-was-tracking-community-leaders

[my my my!]

I've already identified myself as gun owner. However I do believe there are many solutions that would bring gun deaths down considerably, of course it will upset some and make others happy, but it would be at the very least an improvement

First, I'm a realist, and believe that Humans are inherently prone to being violent which is the reason that I don't believe we are going to stop the gang/underworld type of shootings. Criminals will get weapons somehow, theoretically from corrupt foreign country black markets (assuming at that point in the future , ALL guns are banned and confiscated from every single home in the US and gun dealers are shut down)

I don't like using google for these type of subjects, but am I correct in saying that most of the mass campus shootings of the past 5 years have been by teens to mid 20's type of people?

Now some ideas I came up with just from the top of my head (don't believe me because you've seen them before? well perhaps you have, and I'm not denying that they might be similar to other's Ideas, but I promise you I didn't google these )

some Ideas I want to share with you, Please refrain from the "how moronic" comments and contribute a reason as to why it would not work outright , or what could be changed to these ideas)
-Require all gun owners to register their weapons (serial number and weapon type) and have the data added to central database. The local cops here can punch in your license plate and figure out if your car is insured, and what your name is before even asking you , Unless you're in a stolen car or someone else's car. So doing a central database system for guns that is accessible to all law enforcement, gun dealers and other government entities is very do-able. Public availability to this database? Perhaps not, because criminals would know exactly where to get weapons from registered citizens.

-Raise the minimum age for buying weapons to 30 . I'll admit that with teen angst and college years drama , some people of those ages just shouldn't have a weapon available (not saying that older people don't go nuts and shoot people too). I have the belief that People become wiser and more serene as they get older, generally.

- Initiate a psychological/psychiatric evaluation program that is mandatory for anyone turning 18 or less general , anyone wanting to buy a weapon for that matter. They did one of these at my old work place as part of a workplace personality study, and you'd be surprised how many people realistically were found to need counseling. Some employee's answers were evaluated, and interpreted to show signs of depression, dissatisfaction and other issues. When the same employee was asked, they revealed that said conditions were true. Might give insight into perhaps prohibiting sales of firearms to some people with these types of issues.

- Install a sensor/chip type of device on ALL weapons, even retro fitting old weapons in people's possession. Create "boundaries" within cities or areas, that firearms are absolutely forbidden and will raise an alarm, such as schools, banks and other institutions. *I admit guns should only be allowed in gun environments like shooting ranges. Current gps and navigation technology would allow this, it would just be a matter of passing the legislation to require this and then implementing the system. Example school would be able to detect a registered weapon within 2000 yards of the school and sound a buzzer or alarm, like the old "fire drills"

- Require a high technology safe for all weapons , except for ONE weapon designated for home defense (this one is very hard to enforce admittedly unless the door to door principle is implemented) One solution could be , to force us gun owners, to get a permit to shoot,EVERY TIME we want to shoot our weapons. They would be like the ones you are issued when you want to make an addition to your house. Us shooters would have to plan way in advance when we want to schedule a shooting session. Possible killers might get frustrated by this process and calm down and NOT do what they were going to do.

- Anyone under 30 can not discharge any weapon, without the registered serial number owner present. What does this mean? Junior can not tell dad, "dad I'm going to go fire the 44" anymore, without dad having to accompany him.

- Make magazines with serial numbers that also have to be registered, and Limit one magazine for the home defense weapon. When someone tries to buy more magazines, the seller (gun shop) runs the buyer's information through the centralized system, and will know if the person already has a magazine in their possession. Claims of "I need another one because my other one is damaged" would require bringing the other magazine in to the seller's facility, to be registered for destruction, and removal of serial number from buyer's profile. Inserting bullets into the magazine would have to be done on the spot, if anyone actually managed to unload the "home defense pistol" in public.

- for those of us that value the home defense sense of security, Neighborhood watch type of programs should be looked at again. That way if any strange people are in a neighborhood, actions can be taken to PREVENT a crime, including a shooting.

-require gun safety and gun violence teaching at schools. even if it's a 2 hour course per student per year or something like that. Kids would be shown how a gun works, and would be shown statistics of how many people die by guns every year. Demonize guns, so maybe the newer generations don't like guns as much, and us older gun guys eventually die out. There will be less guns in FUTURE generations.

Social factors related to shootings and other violence and deaths that might be worth looking into:
- Punish bullying, internet/real life harrasment, child abuse with stiffer fines and penalties. The reason I bring this up, is because some of the mass shooters, or random shootings are done by people that were being bullied at school/work or in another social scenario. Also perhaps look MORE into the resources available to bullied/harassed/abused children and teens (or of any age). Crisis centers, teaching kids in school that bullying has negative effects and perhaps also show the statistics i.e.how many kids committed suicide or homicide because they were being bullied/harassed/abused.

- Look into Workplace firings/layoffs more deeply. Alot of shooters are disgruntled ex-employees. Perhaps force a temporary confiscation of Laid off people's weapons. They have to prove stable employment to regain their weapons as well as pass the psychological requirement exam. Employers would be required to report terminations to corresponding authority, to escort laid off employees to their homes. Mass layoffs would get tricky though.

-Look way more seriously into unemployed/laid off counseling and psychiatric help programs. It is very STRESSFUL to get laid off, and some people just can't hack it. I was laid off 4 years ago, and our employer just to sign our termination, and we were without a job a minute later. No offer of counseling programs or resources.

- Look into Implementing an even stricter rating (example would be 25+ only 25 year olds and above can play that game or watch that movie) for video games, movies and other media that depict guns shooting a human. Do we really need kids playing a game where your objective is to shoot as many people as you can? Does a 14 year old need to see the new Rambo movie? Or be force fed call of duty every year for 10 years in a row? This is a free speech issue, and Is kind of harsh.

A Possible Scenario for the safe would be:
Let's say , I feel like shooting some targets at a gun range. I schedule an appointment with my local gun range (walk ins would no longer be allowed), gun range gives me code to open my safe. That way kids/teenagers/early 20's dudes don't have access to the code.

Possible Results:
Eventually. lesser gun deaths.

However, patient psycopaths might figure out ways to circumvent all these measures or use other means to kill. That is the nature of humanity.

From the media limits, and the showing informative videos in school, maybe the gun culture will fizzle out and the new generations might not be that interested in them anymore.

I sincerely believe We can do all of these, the technology is there i.e. GPS, home arrest mechanisms are proof that they can monitor when someone leaves a house.

None of this is proposed or suggested to happen over night. It would take perhaps years of legislation, and development of consistent/working technology and commitment from both the citizenry (gunowners and non owners alike) and government (no half-assed sh*t) to make all this work to bring gun deaths down by a huge percentage.

[volkov2006]

First, I'm a realist, and believe that Humans are inherently prone to being violent which is the reason that I don't believe we are going to stop the gang/underworld type of shootings. Criminals will get weapons somehow, theoretically from corrupt foreign country black markets (assuming at that point in the future , ALL guns are banned and confiscated from every single home in the US and gun dealers are shut down)

I don't like using google for these type of subjects, but am I correct in saying that most of the mass campus shootings of the past 5 years have been by teens to mid 20's type of people?

-Require all gun owners to register their weapons (serial number and weapon type) and have the data added to central database. The local cops here can punch in your license plate and figure out if your car is insured, and what your name is before even asking you , Unless you're in a stolen car or someone else's car. So doing a central database system for guns that is accessible to all law enforcement, gun dealers and other government entities is very do-able. Public availability to this database? Perhaps not, because criminals would know exactly where to get weapons from registered citizens.

-Raise the minimum age for buying weapons to 30 . I'll admit that with teen angst and college years drama , some people of those ages just shouldn't have a weapon available (not saying that older people don't go nuts and shoot people too). I have the belief that People become wiser and more serene as they get older, generally.

- Initiate a psychological/psychiatric evaluation program that is mandatory for anyone turning 18 or less general , anyone wanting to buy a weapon for that matter. They did one of these at my old work place as part of a workplace personality study, and you'd be surprised how many people realistically were found to need counseling. Some employee's answers were evaluated, and interpreted to show signs of depression, dissatisfaction and other issues. When the same employee was asked, they revealed that said conditions were true. Might give insight into perhaps prohibiting sales of firearms to some people with these types of issues.

- Install a sensor/chip type of device on ALL weapons, even retro fitting old weapons in people's possession. Create "boundaries" within cities or areas, that firearms are absolutely forbidden and will raise an alarm, such as schools, banks and other institutions. *I admit guns should only be allowed in gun environments like shooting ranges. Current gps and navigation technology would allow this, it would just be a matter of passing the legislation to require this and then implementing the system. Example school would be able to detect a registered weapon within 2000 yards of the school and sound a buzzer or alarm, like the old "fire drills"

- Require a high technology safe for all weapons , except for ONE weapon designated for home defense (this one is very hard to enforce admittedly unless the door to door principle is implemented) One solution could be , to force us gun owners, to get a permit to shoot,EVERY TIME we want to shoot our weapons. They would be like the ones you are issued when you want to make an addition to your house. Us shooters would have to plan way in advance when we want to schedule a shooting session. Possible killers might get frustrated by this process and calm down and NOT do what they were going to do.

- Anyone under 30 can not discharge any weapon, without the registered serial number owner present. What does this mean? Junior can not tell dad, "dad I'm going to go fire the 44" anymore, without dad having to accompany him.

- Make magazines with serial numbers that also have to be registered, and Limit one magazine for the home defense weapon. When someone tries to buy more magazines, the seller (gun shop) runs the buyer's information through the centralized system, and will know if the person already has a magazine in their possession. Claims of "I need another one because my other one is damaged" would require bringing the other magazine in to the seller's facility, to be registered for destruction, and removal of serial number from buyer's profile. Inserting bullets into the magazine would have to be done on the spot, if anyone actually managed to unload the "home defense pistol" in public.

- for those of us that value the home defense sense of security, Neighborhood watch type of programs should be looked at again. That way if any strange people are in a neighborhood, actions can be taken to PREVENT a crime, including a shooting.

-require gun safety and gun violence teaching at schools. even if it's a 2 hour course per student per year or something like that. Kids would be shown how a gun works, and would be shown statistics of how many people die by guns every year. Demonize guns, so maybe the newer generations don't like guns as much, and us older gun guys eventually die out. There will be less guns in FUTURE generations.

Social factors related to shootings and other violence and deaths that might be worth looking into:
- Punish bullying, internet/real life harrasment, child abuse with stiffer fines and penalties. The reason I bring this up, is because some of the mass shooters, or random shootings are done by people that were being bullied at school/work or in another social scenario. Also perhaps look MORE into the resources available to bullied/harassed/abused children and teens (or of any age). Crisis centers, teaching kids in school that bullying has negative effects and perhaps also show the statistics i.e.how many kids committed suicide or homicide because they were being bullied/harassed/abused.

- Look into Workplace firings/layoffs more deeply. Alot of shooters are disgruntled ex-employees. Perhaps force a temporary confiscation of Laid off people's weapons. They have to prove stable employment to regain their weapons as well as pass the psychological requirement exam. Employers would be required to report terminations to corresponding authority, to escort laid off employees to their homes. Mass layoffs would get tricky though.

-Look way more seriously into unemployed/laid off counseling and psychiatric help programs. It is very STRESSFUL to get laid off, and some people just can't hack it. I was laid off 4 years ago, and our employer just to sign our termination, and we were without a job a minute later. No offer of counseling programs or resources.

- Look into Implementing an even stricter rating (example would be 25+ only 25 year olds and above can play that game or watch that movie) for video games, movies and other media that depict guns shooting a human. Do we really need kids playing a game where your objective is to shoot as many people as you can? Does a 14 year old need to see the new Rambo movie? Or be force fed call of duty every year for 10 years in a row? This is a free speech issue, and Is kind of harsh.

I first want to start off with saying that I am not going to say "you are a fucking moron" it may be my first amendment right to do so but I choose to not say things like that for my own morals.

Also I really like this post you actually brought out some solutions that may or may not work. This is the kind of thing we need not people just saying "we need to have gun laws" and the other side saying "you liberal hippys coming for our guns YOU COMMIES!".

I also what to say that as of today 71 days since Newtown 2218 people have died from a gun that is up 21 since yesterday. For anyone who wants to know where I am getting these numbers:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html

I do agree that humans are inherently violent, but throughout the world we have the most gun deaths outside of some sort of war like situations, like civil wars, revolutions, warlords, etc.

Also I do admit that a lot of guns are purchased through the black market for warlords or drug cartels or para military outfits, but most criminal guns here in the US are actually obtained by stealing from responsible gun owners or going to a gun show and dealing with private dealers that don't do background checks, or even photo ID, just money.

I do agree that owners should need to register their guns just like we need to register our vehicles. Although with out finding a way to stop gun thefts, or at least getting the owners to report the theft, and closing the gun-show loophole that will have little effect.

Raising the age to a minimum of 30 would make a lot of difference on the amount of gun owners but like I said in my previous post if we don't stop theft or the loophole that will have little effect. Also raising the minimum age to 30 may hurt families that rely on hunting, although most of the hunters only need a shotgun or a 5 round bolt-action rifle for these type of things.

I agree with the psychiatric background checks for purchasing a weapon. The only problem is again , I feel like a broken record, thefts and loophole. Also another major thing is that their is a law here in the US that all background checks for weapon purchases by the FBI must be destroyed within 2 weeks, why. Also some retailers must be charged if they don't give background check, which we don't do.

That sounds really cool and would probably work although we would need to find a way for it to not be removed with out destroying it. Also we had a thing many years ago that was down played by gun manufacturers, it was a type of DNA scanning or something like that like what was for laptops about 3 years ago. Sadly it did not catch on.

I like the scheduling thing but good luck getting it through any sort of government body with out the NRA screaming that they are coming for our guns, and what makes them better then us, or this is the end of America. Although 87% or NRA members want better gun laws, the NRA does not listen, because sine 2004 they have been lobbing for the gun manufacturers.

I like this it is like a teenager who has a driving permit, they must drive with a person of 21 years of age or older, or a parent, I do like this thing.

I like the serial number for magazines, and limiting them. Although the Aurora shooter from Colorado this past summer had purchased most of his ammo online, unchecked. Also the gun-show loophole.

I do like the neighborhood watch thing although they should not be armed, otherwise we will have another Travon Martin on our hands(what a mess that was).

I am very cautious about teaching at the schools, 1 teaching them how to use them might make kids want to have them more. I think teaching them the statistics and history of gun violence and the non-lethal ways would be better than teaching them to use the guns. Also some self defense training would be a good thing and how to act when forced into a gun situation.

The bulling, layoff, and the unemployment does need a lot of attention. These are put off to the side lines far to often.

The rating system for games and movies like the ESRB needs to be trashed, I personally like the European PEGI system. The ESRB has only Everyone, Everyone +10, Teen, Mature, and Adult Only. PEGI on the other hand is rated by age not age groups, ie 12, 13, 14, not 13-16 for Teen. Although almost every study into games and movies has shown yes that it does increase aggressiveness but it also states that those tendencies wear off within 30 minutes most within 10.

[my my my!]

Volkov, that's why I said this:

None of this is proposed or suggested to happen over night. It would take perhaps years of legislation, and development of consistent/working technology and commitment from both the citizenry (gunowners and non owners alike) and government (no half-assed sh*t) to make all this work to bring gun deaths down by a huge percentage.

Of course People will always try to circumvent things.


commitment from both the citizenry (gunowners and non owners alike) and government (no half-assed sh*t)

if there's none of this , the issue is going to stall like abortion and some others. just 2 sides constantly going at it, and upsetting each other with their proposals and ideas.

I know people on both sides of the Abortion debate, and they will not budge.
The pro lifers I know are damn set in their ways, just like the pro-choicers are.No amount of debate is going to convince them, they've heard it all already and are still set in their way.

Believe it or not, I do know anti gun people that are actually my friends, and they are set in their ways. Short of confiscating anything they consider "dangerous", they wont listen to proposals that might be worth giving a try as opposed to "no , this is my way of thinking and I'm not budging"

[volkov2006]

Volkov, that's why I said this:

None of this is proposed or suggested to happen over night. It would take perhaps years of legislation, and development of consistent/working technology and commitment from both the citizenry (gunowners and non owners alike) and government (no half-assed sh*t) to make all this work to bring gun deaths down by a huge percentage.

Of course People will always try to circumvent things.


commitment from both the citizenry (gunowners and non owners alike) and government (no half-assed sh*t)

if there's none of this , the issue is going to stall like abortion and some others. just 2 sides constantly going at it, and upsetting each other with their proposals and ideas.

I know people on both sides of the Abortion debate, and they will not budge.
The pro lifers I know are damn set in their ways, just like the pro-choicers are.No amount of debate is going to convince them, they've heard it all already and are still set in their way.

Believe it or not, I do know anti gun people that are actually my friends, and they are set in their ways. Short of confiscating anything they consider "dangerous", they wont listen to proposals that might be worth giving a try as opposed to "no , this is my way of thinking and I'm not budging"

I understand I was just trying to expand on some of your topics, not point out why they will fail, just trying to help put things in perspective.

Believe me or not I was very pro gun just 2 years ago, but I changed only because I was getting tired of seeing every 2 weeks another mass shooting. Just last year I had starting my transition (M2F) and had wanted to get a gun for protection because I am not passable at all (I am ugly as hell), but after serious thought I decided against it. So I don't believe I am set in my ways, I believe in compromise but as of right now the gun lobbyists, the NRA, the majority of Republicans, and the hard core gun owners are the ones that are so stuck in their ways that nothing is getting done. Now I know that liberals, democrats and others are just as set in their ways but I think we have given more than the right has.

Also it was the NRA that actually fought for people on the terror watch list whether they were there on accident or for a very specific reason, for them to have guns, any guns they wanted. I personally think that the NRA needs new management and get the crazies out, most NRA members are not crazy they are reasonable people, likeable people, but the NRA management WOW!

I don't think the way to make good sensible changes is by fighting and getting rid of all guns, but I personally thing a civilian should not need access to military grade weapons. If you want to fire these guns I think setting up gun ranges where you rent these guns for a set amount of times while you are there just like paint ball would work pretty good and people who want to fire and handle these weapons get to do so. They would have to workout some finer details to make it work right but I think if we ban these weapons but open these places up would make up for not being able to own them.

Also for the confiscating I am against, but I am not against buy back programs where you turn them in for a gift card or cash for what it is worth. Because if the government passed a thing to ban something would you want to be in possession on it, if they banned ford trucks you would want to sell it to the government. I think if you have bought these items and they become illegal you should be reimbursed for it.

And thank you for being a kind and tacked full in these last few posts, it is refreshing from the screaming matches. Thank you so much, nothing will get done if we all don't stop fighting and talk normally.

Thank you!

[buttslinger]

I get the Washington Post every day, I can read daily the gun situation, issues weighed carefully in order of importance. Because of Newtown on top of other recent shootings, new laws will be passed, and they'll do something, but just some things.

There was a time when rifles could finish an argument, but that time is over.

[trish]

No gun ever finished any argument. Words are forever while guns rust.

[robertlouis]

I've already identified myself as gun owner. However I do believe there are many solutions that would bring gun deaths down considerably, of course it will upset some and make others happy, but it would be at the very least an improvement

First, I'm a realist, and believe that Humans are inherently prone to being violent which is the reason that I don't believe we are going to stop the gang/underworld type of shootings. Criminals will get weapons somehow, theoretically from corrupt foreign country black markets (assuming at that point in the future , ALL guns are banned and confiscated from every single home in the US and gun dealers are shut down)

I don't like using google for these type of subjects, but am I correct in saying that most of the mass campus shootings of the past 5 years have been by teens to mid 20's type of people?

Now some ideas I came up with just from the top of my head (don't believe me because you've seen them before? well perhaps you have, and I'm not denying that they might be similar to other's Ideas, but I promise you I didn't google these )

some Ideas I want to share with you, Please refrain from the "how moronic" comments and contribute a reason as to why it would not work outright , or what could be changed to these ideas)
-Require all gun owners to register their weapons (serial number and weapon type) and have the data added to central database. The local cops here can punch in your license plate and figure out if your car is insured, and what your name is before even asking you , Unless you're in a stolen car or someone else's car. So doing a central database system for guns that is accessible to all law enforcement, gun dealers and other government entities is very do-able. Public availability to this database? Perhaps not, because criminals would know exactly where to get weapons from registered citizens.

-Raise the minimum age for buying weapons to 30 . I'll admit that with teen angst and college years drama , some people of those ages just shouldn't have a weapon available (not saying that older people don't go nuts and shoot people too). I have the belief that People become wiser and more serene as they get older, generally.

- Initiate a psychological/psychiatric evaluation program that is mandatory for anyone turning 18 or less general , anyone wanting to buy a weapon for that matter. They did one of these at my old work place as part of a workplace personality study, and you'd be surprised how many people realistically were found to need counseling. Some employee's answers were evaluated, and interpreted to show signs of depression, dissatisfaction and other issues. When the same employee was asked, they revealed that said conditions were true. Might give insight into perhaps prohibiting sales of firearms to some people with these types of issues.

- Install a sensor/chip type of device on ALL weapons, even retro fitting old weapons in people's possession. Create "boundaries" within cities or areas, that firearms are absolutely forbidden and will raise an alarm, such as schools, banks and other institutions. *I admit guns should only be allowed in gun environments like shooting ranges. Current gps and navigation technology would allow this, it would just be a matter of passing the legislation to require this and then implementing the system. Example school would be able to detect a registered weapon within 2000 yards of the school and sound a buzzer or alarm, like the old "fire drills"

- Require a high technology safe for all weapons , except for ONE weapon designated for home defense (this one is very hard to enforce admittedly unless the door to door principle is implemented) One solution could be , to force us gun owners, to get a permit to shoot,EVERY TIME we want to shoot our weapons. They would be like the ones you are issued when you want to make an addition to your house. Us shooters would have to plan way in advance when we want to schedule a shooting session. Possible killers might get frustrated by this process and calm down and NOT do what they were going to do.

- Anyone under 30 can not discharge any weapon, without the registered serial number owner present. What does this mean? Junior can not tell dad, "dad I'm going to go fire the 44" anymore, without dad having to accompany him.

- Make magazines with serial numbers that also have to be registered, and Limit one magazine for the home defense weapon. When someone tries to buy more magazines, the seller (gun shop) runs the buyer's information through the centralized system, and will know if the person already has a magazine in their possession. Claims of "I need another one because my other one is damaged" would require bringing the other magazine in to the seller's facility, to be registered for destruction, and removal of serial number from buyer's profile. Inserting bullets into the magazine would have to be done on the spot, if anyone actually managed to unload the "home defense pistol" in public.

- for those of us that value the home defense sense of security, Neighborhood watch type of programs should be looked at again. That way if any strange people are in a neighborhood, actions can be taken to PREVENT a crime, including a shooting.

-require gun safety and gun violence teaching at schools. even if it's a 2 hour course per student per year or something like that. Kids would be shown how a gun works, and would be shown statistics of how many people die by guns every year. Demonize guns, so maybe the newer generations don't like guns as much, and us older gun guys eventually die out. There will be less guns in FUTURE generations.

Social factors related to shootings and other violence and deaths that might be worth looking into:
- Punish bullying, internet/real life harrasment, child abuse with stiffer fines and penalties. The reason I bring this up, is because some of the mass shooters, or random shootings are done by people that were being bullied at school/work or in another social scenario. Also perhaps look MORE into the resources available to bullied/harassed/abused children and teens (or of any age). Crisis centers, teaching kids in school that bullying has negative effects and perhaps also show the statistics i.e.how many kids committed suicide or homicide because they were being bullied/harassed/abused.

- Look into Workplace firings/layoffs more deeply. Alot of shooters are disgruntled ex-employees. Perhaps force a temporary confiscation of Laid off people's weapons. They have to prove stable employment to regain their weapons as well as pass the psychological requirement exam. Employers would be required to report terminations to corresponding authority, to escort laid off employees to their homes. Mass layoffs would get tricky though.

-Look way more seriously into unemployed/laid off counseling and psychiatric help programs. It is very STRESSFUL to get laid off, and some people just can't hack it. I was laid off 4 years ago, and our employer just to sign our termination, and we were without a job a minute later. No offer of counseling programs or resources.

- Look into Implementing an even stricter rating (example would be 25+ only 25 year olds and above can play that game or watch that movie) for video games, movies and other media that depict guns shooting a human. Do we really need kids playing a game where your objective is to shoot as many people as you can? Does a 14 year old need to see the new Rambo movie? Or be force fed call of duty every year for 10 years in a row? This is a free speech issue, and Is kind of harsh.

A Possible Scenario for the safe would be:
Let's say , I feel like shooting some targets at a gun range. I schedule an appointment with my local gun range (walk ins would no longer be allowed), gun range gives me code to open my safe. That way kids/teenagers/early 20's dudes don't have access to the code.

Possible Results:
Eventually. lesser gun deaths.

However, patient psycopaths might figure out ways to circumvent all these measures or use other means to kill. That is the nature of humanity.

From the media limits, and the showing informative videos in school, maybe the gun culture will fizzle out and the new generations might not be that interested in them anymore.

I sincerely believe We can do all of these, the technology is there i.e. GPS, home arrest mechanisms are proof that they can monitor when someone leaves a house.

None of this is proposed or suggested to happen over night. It would take perhaps years of legislation, and development of consistent/working technology and commitment from both the citizenry (gunowners and non owners alike) and government (no half-assed sh*t) to make all this work to bring gun deaths down by a huge percentage.

Excellent post, cogently and calmly argued, and a lot in there that most people on the pro-control side could work with. If only more people in the gun lobby could approach the issue openly and constructively there could be some chance of a progressive dialogue. Thank you.

[fivekatz]

Excellent post, cogently and calmly argued, and a lot in there that most people on the pro-control side could work with. If only more people in the gun lobby could approach the issue openly and constructively there could be some chance of a progressive dialogue. Thank you.I agree and frankly far more than we can hope to expect at this turn of a corner of ignoring the issues surround violence in our society.

At the core of the problem is violence, is anger, is alienation. Guns become an issue because they facilitate radical expressions of violence, anger, isolation and alienation at literal pull of a trigger. And assault weapons amplify those emotions by firing rounds of death in a matter of seconds.

To me the debate today in the US over guns place in society should not be a one time solution to problems that are this deep rooted in our society BUT debate should not be derailed by the fact that there is no way to eliminate all the damage that firearms contribute to.

It is time hopefully that the gun manufactures megaphone (The NRA) not dominate the conversation either through the fear tactics of a supposed prohibition that they know will never happen or the distraction that no solution in an imperfect world is perfect.

It is time in America to take a step back and look at who we are and what we can do and so openly and frankly deal with issues like mental health that we set an example that will inspire other nations rather than our current position which leaves other nation's questioning how can a people so good at their core be so disengaged from the suffering surroundiing them?

[volkov2006]

72 days since Newtown there have been 2262 gun deaths up 44 since yesterday.

If anyone wants me to stop posting the inconvenient truth of the approximate number of murders please let me know.

[volkov2006]

72 days since Newtown there have been 2262 gun deaths up 44 since yesterday.

If anyone wants me to stop posting the inconvenient truth of the approximate number of murders please let me know.

Sorry I meant 73 not 72 days.

[fivekatz]

72 days since Newtown there have been 2262 gun deaths up 44 since yesterday.

If anyone wants me to stop posting the inconvenient truth of the approximate number of murders please let me know.Actually if the media would pick-up on the daily body count I think NRA could just close-up shop on K Street.

The fact that most days it is other peoples kids, getting killed in other peoples neighborhoods, often poor, often of color has contributed to the environment of just pretending the violence and death aren't there. Long as you don't connect the "murder at City Park, details at 11" with a national body count people can just assume it is a problem but somebody else's .

Keep up the good work!

[volkov2006]

Actually if the media would pick-up on the daily body count I think NRA could just close-up shop on K Street.

The fact that most days it is other peoples kids, getting killed in other peoples neighborhoods, often poor, often of color has contributed to the environment of just pretending the violence and death aren't there. Long as you don't connect the "murder at City Park, details at 11" with a national body count people can just assume it is a problem but somebody else's .

Keep up the good work!

Thank you I will do my best, at least until the something is done to lower this number or stop it from growing period.

[fivekatz]

Thank you I will do my best, at least until the something is done to lower this number or stop it from growing period.For those living in the States and old enough to remember the media's nightly announcement of how many days the Iranians had held the US hostages... (As we begin our report this evening it is Day 31 in the Hostage Crisis) it had a remarkable effect on public opinion.

Can you imaging if every news broadcast began with and today the death toll from guns has reached XXX in XX day of the year?

[robertlouis]

For those living in the States and old enough to remember the media's nightly announcement of how many days the Iranians had held the US hostages... (As we begin our report this evening it is Day 31 in the Hostage Crisis) it had a remarkable effect on public opinion.

Can you imaging if every news broadcast began with and today the death toll from guns has reached XXX in XX day of the year?

I can - and you know very well which side of the debate I'm on - but would putting up the same stats for tobacco deaths make diehard smokers stop? Unlikely, I'd suggest. And it's essentially the same with the most vociferous and extreme advocates of minimum or preferably no control on guns. Some lobbies and interests simply won't listen regardless of how often you confront them with the facts.

[buttslinger]

There are towns in North Dakota where everybody has guns, and there's no crime, nobody locks their door. They look at gun crime as a problem of the cities, with it's gangs, drugs, welfare checks, high cost of living, and rampant homosexuality.

[robertlouis]

There are towns in North Dakota where everybody has guns, and there's no crime, nobody locks their door. They look at gun crime as a problem of the cities, with it's gangs, drugs, welfare checks, high cost of living, and rampant homosexuality.

Gays with guns??

Only if they match the outfit, honeybunch. :dancing:

[brickcitybrother]

The analogies to cars and medical malpractice don't even withstand the mildest scrutiny.

Every year millions of people undergo life-saving treatments and have surgery and the risk of death, while small in each instance, is going to add up on the aggregate. Millions of people drive cars and they need to in order to live a modern lifestyle which means living an unwalkable distance from where they work. Before airbags and seatbelts became a virtual mandate there were thousands of unnecessary deaths a year. In fact, under the Reagan administration as I've said before, the Department of Transportation misunderstood its mandate and did not want to burden car manufacturers in the name of safety.

Further, if you look at the regulatory framework in the medical field, doctors are not immunized from liability the way the gun manufacturers are. Have you heard of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act? It provides broader protection from products liability for gun manufacturers than drug companies have under Comment K of the Second Restatement of Torts. Comment k was included in the restatement of the law based on the understanding that some drugs had great risks but even greater benefits. They were therefore labeled, unavoidably dangerous. Comment K has subsequently been stripped of its protective power for drug manufacturers because it was superfluous. In short, risk-utility analysis (the previous standard) if applied correctly, accounts for this category of so-called unavoidably dangerous products.

What this all means is that big pharma is a heavily regulated industry and companies are susceptible to lawsuits even when they're creating drugs to unclog your arteries or treat cancer. Doctors do not have a good faith defense to malpractice and are held up to professional standards regardless of intent, as they should be. Gun manufacturers, on the other hand, have virtual immunity from suit even for creative actions such as negligent marketing, which would allow them to be sued for directing their advertisement of assault weapons to criminals.

Finally, to hammer home the final point. People need some form of transport just to live in urban areas. People need medical care and prescription drugs. The argument for the necessity of guns is far weaker and almost makes this entire exercise pointless because it's so intuitive.

The PLCAA-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
Just a wiki, but why don't you see why Congress saw fit to prevent accountability in the marketplace. Immunity from suit.

Comment K of the Restatement-http://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/13/

Not a great article on comment k imo, or how it has been interpreted subsequently, but it does demonstrate that drug manufacturers are far more accountable than gun manufacturers in products liability law.

Unfortunately... you miss each point I made.

1st - There should be regulation regarding gun ownership greater than exists today.
2nd - The first point means that I am in favor of gun ownership - if the first point can be accomplished.

3rd - The numbers are important. Gun deaths are like shark attacks - they take a greater proportion of attention then appropriate. Guns are easy news stories with easy taglines that can be exploited.

[fivekatz]

I can - and you know very well which side of the debate I'm on - but would putting up the same stats for tobacco deaths make diehard smokers stop? Unlikely, I'd suggest. And it's essentially the same with the most vociferous and extreme advocates of minimum or preferably no control on guns. Some lobbies and interests simply won't listen regardless of how often you confront them with the facts.The possible difference in this argument is that while no matter how much the media talked about the threats of smoking, die hard smokers would not quit society as a whole became very open to limiting the rights of smokers, in planes, in restaurants and eventual almost all public places and in some parts of the US within 150 feet of a building. Add to that the taxation on cigarettes made ownership and usage quite difficult.

Tobacco deaths have dramatically dropped. In states in the US like California where they have been most aggressive about dealing with tobacco use in public places and education about the dangers of tobacco use, health consequences from tobacco and the private and public health sector care costs have dropped the most as of course have tobacco related fatalities.

There is no prohibition or magic wand to end the effect of firearms on mankind or in the more limited view the citizens of the US. But a public more educated and faced to hear every day what damage our current lack of attention to firearm safety/ownership issues present the more likely that popular opinion will turn against the current belief that this issue isn't a big deal.

The tobacco industry was able to manipulate public policy as long or longer than the NRA and the gun manufacturers have and while tobacco still lives they are contained and IMHO so can firearms be contained. And if 12,000 deaths a year and countless injured can be reduced by 25% 0r maybe 75% than that would be a great step forward IMHIO.

[brickcitybrother]

One thing the car accidents are just that ACCIDENTS! They were not intended. Medical mistakes are a thing that happens, most of the time it is terminally ill patients as a last ditch effort to save their live and doctors always tell the patient and the family there is always a chance that you can die. Obesity is mostly the persons choice and the government can not tell people when and what they can't eat to force them to make them skinny, others it is in their genetic code and then no matter what they will be obese. Cancer would be cured if we stopped sending all of the new science field students to work on the new iPhone, just so we can have a jack on the bottom, or new tablets when laptops work just fine, we would probably have cancer solved by now.

Although with guns, some are accidents (probably about 5-10%). The rest are split between police and murders (90-95%). And in most cases the police need to kill because the person has a gun him/herself. The other part is conscious decisions to kill.

Car accidents are not planed in 99% of the time, medical mistakes are a risk we all take with any medical care to keep us alive and is not planned at all, unless the doctor is a psychopath. Gun deaths on the other hand if any one take a gun to use to kill it is a decision that they made, is not an accident or a risk to keep us alive because of an illness or an accident outside of our control.

The numbers are the numbers... More people are killed by knives than rifles in this country, but the media and the pols are over-concerned about AR-15s and magazine sizes.

[brickcitybrother]

Brickcitybrother, you bring up some good points as far as other things in the world that should be of concern. But that does not change the on-going debate in US about sensible regulation, registration and licensing of firearms.

Auto safety is an interesting topic to bring up. For the longest time the lobbies for auto manufactures and the auto makers themselves always claim that the carnage on the highways was human error and not the product. But after years of infighting safety standards were applied such as seat belts, air bags, better bumpers, better side body construction, superior brakes, break away steering columns were added and the fatalities per capita were radically reduced. Not eliminated reduced.

Then there is the issue of cancer and how many more people a year it kills than guns do and if one looks at what we spend on cancer research as a government versus what we spend on our military that too is shameful.

While idealistically I would love to see us become a society without guns, that is not going to happen, any more than we were going to ban cars.

So what I suggest is we treat the guns just like cars. You need to register it, you need a license to operate it and your license to operate will be controlled by your first passing a simple test just like you would to operate a car and it would be limited to what you as a citizen need to operate.

Now there aren't good reasons for the average citizen to own an assault weapon, so just like the average driver does not have a license to operate a commercial 18 wheeler, the average citizen would not have the a license to operate a assault weapon. Without a license, one should not be allowed to register their assault weapon and since registration could take place at the time of sale, assault weapons would only be sold to those who can show occupational need for assault weapons.

That little bit was just spit balling. But your car analogy was a good chance to show how industry argues a point to distract (people kill people not guns - cars don't kill - drivers error does).

You caught on to one of the points I was making ... simply regulate guns better. Get real background checks and don't allow ANY sales without them. Its a start... but not the last definitive answer.

[brickcitybrother]

Total death figures can be helpful but the other components to consider are this. What effort is required in each case to reduce the number of deaths? Cancer kills millions of people but it has been exceedingly difficult to come up with effective treatments for all of its different manifestations. The research effort continues and money spent on cancer research is still money well spent. Cars? From decade to decade they do get safer. No more Corvair impaling people with the steering column. No more three wheel motorcycles that flip over when turned. SUVs are less likely to flip because manufacturers have been sued and responded by building safer vehicles.

You also cannot look at total number of people killed by an implement without considering its utility. This is common sense. Comparing the number of deaths from transport to the number of deaths from a firearm is braindead unless you can greatly reduce the risk in our transportation system without making automobiles less useful. I don't think any reasonable person could believe that the harm to commerce caused by disallowing civilians to own assault weapons would somehow be similar to the threat of getting rid of highways and cars.

Gun manufacturers have gotten a form of legal immunity that serves no good legal or public policy purpose. Drugs are safer because drug manufacturers are liable for millions every year. Why should guns be shielded and not drugs? You want to encourage the development of prescription treatments for hard to cure diseases and discourage the development of equipment that facilitates mass murder.

Anyhow, it is tremendously disturbing that this guy was able to get his hands on assault weaponry.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/21/17046951-feds-say-neo-nazi-with-guns-was-tracking-community-leaders


Again - the 'Assault weapons are the problem' point. To which I say again - more people die from being stabbed than with ANY TYPE OF RIFLE (of which assault weapons are a subset). I think that ends the argument regarding are greater concern over assault weapons.

[brickcitybrother]

Total death figures can be helpful but the other components to consider are this. What effort is required in each case to reduce the number of deaths? Cancer kills millions of people but it has been exceedingly difficult to come up with effective treatments for all of its different manifestations. The research effort continues and money spent on cancer research is still money well spent. Cars? From decade to decade they do get safer. No more Corvair impaling people with the steering column. No more three wheel motorcycles that flip over when turned. SUVs are less likely to flip because manufacturers have been sued and responded by building safer vehicles.

You also cannot look at total number of people killed by an implement without considering its utility. This is common sense. Comparing the number of deaths from transport to the number of deaths from a firearm is braindead unless you can greatly reduce the risk in our transportation system without making automobiles less useful. I don't think any reasonable person could believe that the harm to commerce caused by disallowing civilians to own assault weapons would somehow be similar to the threat of getting rid of highways and cars.

Gun manufacturers have gotten a form of legal immunity that serves no good legal or public policy purpose. Drugs are safer because drug manufacturers are liable for millions every year. Why should guns be shielded and not drugs? You want to encourage the development of prescription treatments for hard to cure diseases and discourage the development of equipment that facilitates mass murder.

Anyhow, it is tremendously disturbing that this guy was able to get his hands on assault weaponry.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/21/17046951-feds-say-neo-nazi-with-guns-was-tracking-community-leaders


Again - the 'Assault weapons are the problem' point. To which I say again - more people die from being stabbed than with ANY TYPE OF RIFLE (of which assault weapons are a subset). I think that ends the argument regarding are greater concern over assault weapons.


PS - Thank you for raising the level of your point and the debate by implying I'm braindead. Great argument.

[robertlouis]

Again - the 'Assault weapons are the problem' point. To which I say again - more people die from being stabbed than with ANY TYPE OF RIFLE (of which assault weapons are a subset). I think that ends the argument regarding are greater concern over assault weapons.


PS - Thank you for raising the level of your point and the debate by implying I'm braindead. Great argument.


Maybe, but you can't kill 20 people in 30 seconds with a knife.

[buttslinger]

I know I'm coming off as a gun lover here, one problem is tobacco and guns have a lobby with lots of cash behind them, and in the USA, we have a President, not a King, and Obama needs a serious outcry from the public to get anything done. I still don't know why it's the ATF, Bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. does that make sense?

So while Guns have people with a monetary concern backing them up, Sane people have to convince people that there are a lot of things out there that can kill ya. Like Big Macs may kill more people than .38s

Here's the top 15 killers that topped murder in the US in 2010, according to Reuters:

1. Heart disease (595,444 deaths)

2. Malignant neoplasms (573,855)

3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases (137,789)

4. Cerebrovascular diseases (129,180)

5. Accidents (118.043)

6. Alzheimer's disease (83,308)

7. Diabetes (68,905)

8. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (50,472)

9. Influenza and pneumonia (50,003)

10 Suicide (37,793)

11. Septicemia (34,843)

12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis (31,802)

13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (26,577)

14. Parkinson's disease (21,963)

15. Pneumonitis due to solids of liquids (17,001)

[brickcitybrother]

72 days since Newtown there have been 2262 gun deaths up 44 since yesterday.

If anyone wants me to stop posting the inconvenient truth of the approximate number of murders please let me know.



Interesting... Using the same CDC data set as slate is using* 7,315.06 individuals have been killed in auto accidents since Newtown (day 75). Its really interesting that the data estimates that 18,223 people will kill themselves this year by using a gun. ** That's a rate of about 50 a day (meaning that according to that data in 75 days 3,647 individuals will have killed themselves using a gun). Whoa.



*Click Here (http://www.slate.com/sidebars/2013/01/gun_deaths_in_america_since_newtown_about_this_pro ject.html)

**Click Here (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts?s=1)

[fivekatz]

Not to bring up the obvious but a knife has a lot of purposes, from helping you open the latest Amazon box UPS delivered, to skinning your fish, to cutting your steak.

An assault weapon with a high capacity won't help you open your cyber-shopping box, it won't help you cut your dinner into digestible pieces but it sure as hell can kill a a lot folks in a mere half a minute.

Even if every American has the right to bear arms, arms are unkind, they take life more often that they save life and maybe it is time that Americans stop telling teenagers with raging homones to just say no to having an orgasm and start to tell them and the general population to just say no to devices that only have one purpose which is to maim or kill whatever they are successfully aimed at.

[brickcitybrother]

Maybe, but you can't kill 20 people in 30 seconds with a knife.

And you can't defeat a Great White Shark once it begins an attack. What is the point other than to paint a scary picture.

Scare tactics do not make a coherent argument to those who are not scared by them. Assault weapon deaths are incredibly rare - just like shark attack deaths. Incredibly scary and incredibly rare. We should not take a large general problem and base a solution to it on a fractionally rare and minute, but incredibly scary, version of that problem.

This response also applies to fivekatz (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/member.php?u=16122) who wrote, in part:

"An assault weapon with a high capacity won't help you open your cyber-shopping box, it won't help you cut your dinner into digestible pieces but it sure as hell can kill a a lot folks in a mere half a minute."

If assault weapons were to magically disappear - the death rate for guns would not move a single percentage point! But yet people like to focus their attention singularly on them. Just like people who fear entering the ocean ... because of sharks.

[robertlouis]

I know I'm coming off as a gun lover here, one problem is tobacco and guns have a lobby with lots of cash behind them, and in the USA, we have a President, not a King, and Obama needs a serious outcry from the public to get anything done. I still don't know why it's the ATF, Bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. does that make sense?

So while Guns have people with a monetary concern backing them up, Sane people have to convince people that there are a lot of things out there that can kill ya. Like Big Macs may kill more people than .38s

Here's the top 15 killers that topped murder in the US in 2010, according to Reuters:

1. Heart disease (595,444 deaths)

2. Malignant neoplasms (573,855)

3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases (137,789)

4. Cerebrovascular diseases (129,180)

5. Accidents (118.043)

6. Alzheimer's disease (83,308)

7. Diabetes (68,905)

8. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (50,472)

9. Influenza and pneumonia (50,003)

10 Suicide (37,793)

11. Septicemia (34,843)

12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis (31,802)

13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (26,577)

14. Parkinson's disease (21,963)

15. Pneumonitis due to solids of liquids (17,001)



Aside from demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that life itself is a terminal disease, I'm not really sure where this set of stats takes the debate.

[robertlouis]

And you can't defeat a Great White Shark once it begins an attack. What is the point other than to paint a scary picture.

Scare tactics do not make a coherent argument to those who are not scared by them. Assault weapon deaths are incredibly rare - just like shark attack deaths. Incredibly scary and incredibly rare. We should not take a large general problem and base a solution to it on a fractionally rare and minute, but incredibly scary, version of that problem.

So from this should we presume that you're quite happy for "scary and rare" multiple killings with assault rifles to continue without any intervention?

[brickcitybrother]

So from this should we presume that you're quite happy for "scary and rare" multiple killings with assault rifles to continue without any intervention?

Read my original post ... so that you know such a comment misses the point.

From my point you should infer that I would like to address the larger issue of gun ownership and gun deaths and not focus on a tiny scary fraction of them that the media throws in our faces as "Good Television". Too many individuals have fancination with the anecdotal incidents. The focus is just wrong.

[fivekatz]

And you can't defeat a Great White Shark once it begins an attack. What is the point other than to paint a scary picture.

Scare tactics do not make a coherent argument to those who are not scared by them. Assault weapon deaths are incredibly rare - just like shark attack deaths. Incredibly scary and incredibly rare. We should not take a large general problem and base a solution to it on a fractionally rare and minute, but incredibly scary, version of that problem.

This response also applies to fivekatz (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/member.php?u=16122) who wrote, in part:

An assault weapon with a high capacity won't help you open your cyber-shopping box, it won't help you cut your dinner into digestible pieces but it sure as hell can kill a a lot folks in a mere half a minute.

If assault weapons were to magically disappear - the death rate for guns would not move a single percentage point! But yet people like to focus their attention to them. Just like people who fear entering the ocean ... because of sharks.IMHO the rare nature of fatalities from Assault Weapons can only be dwarfed by the fact that there is even less evidence where an assault weapon in the hands of a civilian actually saved lives versus no firearm or a firearm of lesser capacity per every 10 seconds.

Even with this in mind why not just throw the bleeding hearts a bone and take the weapons of mass destruction off of the streets. Not only do you make the chardonnay drinking democrat wimps from the northeast happy, you make tens of thousands of law enforcement officers who hate being out gunned happy. Throw the them bone heh?

Since they aren't a problem why not ban them from the hands of ordinary citizens?

Just wonderin'?

[muh_muh]

Here's the top 15 killers that topped murder in the US in 2010, according to Reuters

this may come as a shock to you but the vast majority of people who die that arent murder victims (so about 20 per year in the us judging by your homicide rates) die from some form of age related illness

[brickcitybrother]

IMHO the rare nature of fatalities from Assault Weapons can only be dwarfed by the fact that there is even less evidence where an assault weapon in the hands of a civilian actually saved lives versus no firearm or a firearm of lesser capacity per every 10 seconds.

Even with this in mind why not just throw the bleeding hearts a bone and take the weapons of mass destruction of the streets. Not only do you make the chardonnay drinking democrat wimps from the northeast happy, you make tens of thousands of law enforcement officers who hate being out gunned happy.

Since they aren't a problem why not ban them from the hands of ordinary citizens?

Just wonderin'?
.
.

Using your logic... I presume you are fine with the Virginia Tech shooter who killed 32 and wounded 17 because he DID NOT use any assault weapons (even though he committed a massacre that is clearly the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history).

Just wonderin'?

[fivekatz]

.
.

Using your logic... I presume you are fine with the Virginia Tech shooter who killed 32 and wounded 17 because he DID NOT use any assault weapons (even though he committed a massacre that is clearly the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history).

Just wonderin'?Depends on your definition of assault weapons I suppose. But just the same if the weapons used at VT weren't covered under an inyial ban of assault weapons by citizens who can not show good cause for owning them I would call it a good start.

[brickcitybrother]

Wow ... talk about missing the point.

Seung-Hui Cho used handguns ONLY (a Glock 19 and a Walther P22). It wasn't a trick question. And his magazines were not extended mags or subject to a federal ban.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_P22)

[fivekatz]

Wow ... talk about missing the point.

Seung-Hui Cho used handguns ONLY (a Glock 19 and a Walther P22). It wasn't a trick question. And his magazines were not extended mags or subject to a federal ban.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_P22)I did not miss the point. I would think one brick at a time would make sense to brick city brother.

Sure the debate is wider than high capacity mags or even guns, in includes a lack of understanding and treatment of mental health issues and whole lot of other stuff but to repeat my statement:

If assault weapons are such a non-issues shouldn't NRA and all the 2nd Amendment folks just feed them to the bleeding hearts to shut us up?

I still have yet to hear about 12,001 lives saved a year by guns that off set the 12,000 a year that die in their carnage.

This is not an argument of constitutional rights my friend, the congress would trample your rights in a flash if the big money was there to ban guns rather than the big money being associated with allowing gun manufactures to sell their products unfettered.
.

[robertlouis]

Read my original post ... so that you know such a comment misses the point.

From my point you should infer that I would like to address the larger issue of gun ownership and gun deaths and not focus on a tiny scary fraction of them that the media throws in our faces as "Good Television". Too many individuals have fancination with the anecdotal incidents. The focus is just wrong.

I agree entirely on your point in that the overwhelming majority of gun homicides involve a single victim and a single shooter and that the awful totality of the situation gets lost all too often. But surely it's the horror of the large-scale multiple shootings, often using assault and semi-automatic weapons, that sticks in the memory. How could any sentient being not be moved and angered by any lazy jurisdiction which creates the conditions that condone a massacre of children such as at Newtown?

[hippifried]

This thread has the smartest people saying the dumbest shit.

The car/gun ANALogy doesn't work at all. Cars aren't weapons. Guns have no other function. There's no relation in this context. Boats aren't banned because the Titanic sunk, but there's enough lifeboats on every cruise ship nowadays. The song & dance about how everything kills you doesn't work either. The gun debates aren't about people dying. Everybody dies. If it were possible to pass legislation doing away with all or most of the deadly maladies on Buttslinger's "list", just about everybody would cheer. Other than the disease maintenance industry, nobdy's going to shed a tear over the eradication of heart disease or cancer. But all that's irrelevant in this context because the topic of gun debates is murder.

[brickcitybrother]

Sorry most folks can't see the forest for the trees.

Even though I have said there is a much bigger issue then assault weapons - that's the focus of the discussion. My statistics were used to demonstrate the misdirection of funds in comparison to the number of deaths (especially in light that the other deaths are much more preventable than homicides/suicides committed by guns). Even though I suggested and agree that there must be real regulation for every gun and every gun sale, most folks are simply fixated with a 'Shark in the Water' mentality.

Oh well

[my my my!]

Sorry most folks can't see the forest for the trees.

Even though I have said there is a much bigger issue then assault weapons - that's the focus of the discussion. My statistics were used to demonstrate the misdirection of funds in comparison to the number of deaths (especially in light that the other deaths are much more preventable than homicides/suicides committed by guns). Even though I suggested and agree that there must be real regulation for every gun and every gun sale, most folks are simply fixated with a 'Shark in the Water' mentality.

Oh well

You're never going to get through to most of them.Just like they will never get through to us. Most of the people here are stuck in their "guns are bad" stance (and the same could be said about the pro-gun peeps) and can't see the analogies. Still good people.

To those that keep dismissing the car analogy, You're completely wrong in dismissing it. The simplification of saying "guns and cars are totally different things" is just as bad as me saying "guns have never killed". You would not like me saying a general carpet statement like that would you?

Yes guns can be compared to cars. Before you jump on me for saying it.

Please Consider the following :
1st: I don't want cars or guns banned. get it? Ok let's move to 2nd point.

2nd: Guns and Cars serve a purpose. Guns in civilian hands are to shoot a projectile (do you really think the clerk at the gun store really tells us "have a good time killing people" when we buy a weapon?) Cars are to get you from Point A to Point B (do you really think the car dealership sends you off after buying a car with a "go get drunk and run over little kids, and don't pay attention to the road" , of course not). Get it? ok let's move to 3rd point.

3rd: Guns and Cars DEPEND on the human behind them to use properly in society. Get it? ok let's move to 4th point.

4th: When a Gun is not used properly a death or injury results. When a car is not used properly a death or injury results. Get it? Now to the Final.

Final:To finalize , Guns CAN and will be compared to Cars. Dismissing this analogy makes you seem as stubborn as the gun nuts you so vilify. Suggesting a TOTAL (regulations are fine) ban on either one is too extreme and will be met by stiff opposition in a debate.

You guys too easily dismiss when we mention the analogies of cars vs guns, or cigs vs cars or anything else. Please open up you minds a little. It's clear as day.

I'm a gun owner, and even I admit there need to be some things done to prevent violent gun deaths (as well as accidental gun deaths) just as I believe the measures in place against bad drivers (the ones that kill by human "error", or DWI) could use some work.

[trish]

Getting through to the “guns are good” crowd is futile. They’re stuck in their mind set and are quite happy there.

I own several guns. I use them for the purpose they were designed to perform. Killing.
I own a car. I use it for the purpose it was designed to perform. Getting from point A to point B. I drive every day so I don’t need to practice to keep up my skills. On the other hand, I don’t hunt everyday. So once in a great while, I’ll take my rifle to the practice range and “shoot it in.” That is not it's intended purpose.

1. I don’t want to ban all cars from the highway. Just those that are inherently unsafe for the public highways. I don’t want all guns banned for civilian use. Just those that are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life, namely automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

2. Guns and cars serve a purpose. Guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed for transportation. Clearly guns require more stringent monitoring and control.

3. Cars are not living agents and therefore do not DEPEND on anything. Neither do guns. Both cars and guns can be dangerous. People depend on other people to use either item with caution.

4. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.

One can always compare any two categories. A proper comparision will point out the features that distinguish the categories. Guns are not cars. They chief difference is the purpose behind their design.

Here are some other differences that shouldn’t exist:

Gun manufacturers in the U.S. cannot be held liable for accidents due to bad design or manufacture. If a gun blows up in your face, good luck sueing the manufacturer. Not so for cars. Car manufacturers are often sued for accidents caused by poor manufacturing processes or design flaws. That is why car manufacturers have recalls and gun manufacturers do not. Gun owners are not liable for accidents, injury, death that involve their guns. Car owners are which is why car owners have to have insurance on each car that is driven.

I am a gun owner. I realize that sport hunting serves a useful purpose in conservation and agriculture. I also realize that no one needs a semi-automatic weapon to defend his home, or his person. If you can’t hit your target without one, you’re not doing it right.

If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.

[my my my!]

Getting through to the “guns are good” crowd is futile. They’re stuck in their mind set and are quite happy there.
Same with the anti-gun people. I actually did a list of suggestions, you might not have agreed with any of them.

I own several guns. I use them for the purpose they were designed to perform. Killing.
No, then you're not using them in ALL their capacity, they're also used for not kiling. aka stationary targets and collection/display.

I own a car. I use it for the purpose it was designed to perform. Getting from point A to point B. I drive every day so I don’t need to practice to keep up my skills. On the other hand, I don’t hunt everyday. So once in a great while, I’ll take my rifle to the practice range and “shoot it in.” That is not it's intended purpose.
You're a responsible car owner, like gun owners should be. But if you get in the car drunk , then you would not be using it in it's "intended purpose" or safely would you?

1. I don’t want to ban all cars from the highway. Just those that are inherently unsafe for the public highways. I don’t want all guns banned for civilian use. Just those that are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life, namely automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
I agree. But then again all guns are designed to kill by your own standards. So , why not ban all of them(again, by YOUR standards, they all can kill so are potentially bad right)? You contradict yourself Trish

2. Guns and cars serve a purpose. Guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed for transportation. Clearly guns require more stringent monitoring and control.
Guns may have been designed to kill, buy they are SOLD to civilians for other means as well i.e. target shooting, collection. I do agree about the more stringent monitoring and control as it would help bring the deaths by guns down perhaps considerably

3. Cars are not living agents and therefore do not DEPEND on anything. Neither do guns. Both cars and guns can be dangerous. People depend on other people to use either item with caution.
My point exactly. Car deaths by imprudence bother me as much as anyone dying by a gun.

4. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.
So when a car is used carelessly and kills someone, it did not kill? When a gun is used properly in MILITARY hands , it kills and neutralizes. When a gun is used properly in CIVILIAN hands it hits an inanimate target or an animal. Smh at this one....

One can always compare any two categories. A proper comparision will point out the features that distinguish the categories. Guns are not cars. They chief difference is the purpose behind their design.
No, the main difference is their use. Guns that are sold to civilians are used to hunt animals and targets. When being Misused they are used to murder people. Cars are sold to civilians for transport, and when being misused the kill people

Here are some other differences that shouldn’t exist:

Gun manufacturers in the U.S. cannot be held liable for accidents due to bad design or manufacture. If a gun blows up in your face, good luck sueing the manufacturer. Not so for cars. Car manufacturers are often sued for accidents caused by poor manufacturing processes or design flaws. That is why car manufacturers have recalls and gun manufacturers do not. Gun owners are not liable for accidents, injury, death that involve their guns. Car owners are which is why car owners have to have insurance on each car that is driven.
Agree with this 100% there should be some liability

I am a gun owner. I realize that sport hunting serves a useful purpose in conservation and agriculture. I also realize that no one needs a semi-automatic weapon to defend his home, or his person. If you can’t hit your target without one, you’re not doing it right.
Disagree about the semi automatic, but can actually UNDERSTAND your reason for saying it, a bad shooter is a bad shooter and no ammount of auto/semi auto is going to make him better lol

If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.
If you don't want people to die AT ALL, then you have to ban just about everything that can result in death. Why are only gun deaths bad? Do you not mourn DWI victims? What if someone hangs themselves? Do you not mourn that? But banning rope is stupid right?

[trish]

You're a responsible car owner, like gun owners should be. But if you get in the car drunk , then you would not be using it in it's "intended purpose" or safely would you?Correct. And if while sober I shoot a semi-automatic and kill someone, I am using it for it's intended purpose.


I agree. But then again all guns are designed to kill by your own standards. So , why not ban all of them(again, by YOUR standards, they all can kill so are potentially bad right)? You contradict yourself TrishWhere exactly is the contradiction? I didn't say automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned because they kill, but because they are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life. Civilian use includes hunting. Your argument is an example of mutating an opposing argument to make it say what you want it to say so you can attack it. Please refrain from further use of this demeaning tactic.


Guns may have been designed to kill, buy they are SOLD to civilians for other means as well i.e. target shooting, collection.So you say, but the NRA keeps saying guns are for protection. They (and the gun manufacturers) want a gun in the hand of every college student.


Car deaths by imprudence bother me as much as anyone dying by a gun. And gun deaths by imprudence, or deaths caused by guns fired rashly in a fits of anger, or guns used in the trough of depression to commit suicide are equally abhorrent.


So when a car is used carelessly and kills someone, it did not kill? You misunderstood. I'll repeat. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.


Guns that are sold to civilians are used to hunt animals and targets.Sorry, but you don't hunt targets and you don't need a semi-automatic to hit one. There is no challenge in shooting a target with a semi-automatic weapon. It's not a sport, it's done for erections.


If you don't want people to die AT ALLYou miss the point. The point is about risk. If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.

[my my my!]

Correct. And if while sober I shoot a semi-automatic and kill someone, I am using it for it's intended purpose.

No, you would not be using it for It's intended civilian purpose.You would me MISUSING it.

Where exactly is the contradiction? I didn't say automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned because they kill, but because they are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life. Civilian use includes hunting. Your argument is an example of mutating an opposing argument to make it say what you want it to say so you can attack it. Please refrain from further use of this demeaning tactic.

It's not a demeaning tactic. You contradicted yourself and I called you out on it. You're saying it's ok for YOU to kill animals, but someone should not have a semi auto , even though they're just using it for target shooting. Therein lies the contradiction.

So you say, but the NRA keeps saying guns are for protection. They (and the gun manufacturers) want a gun in the hand of every college student.

It's not "so I say" , it's the truth. If guns had the sole purpose of killing, they would not be sold to anyone, ever, anywhere right?

And gun deaths by imprudence, or deaths caused by guns fired rashly in a fits of anger, or guns used in the trough of depression to commit suicide are equally abhorrent.
Agree. Hence the cars/guns comparison

You misunderstood. I'll repeat. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.
No, I understood perfectly. You don't vilify cars even when though when misused they kill people. I get it. As long as you decide what is bad, that IS what is bad? And other's opinions do not matter.

Not so with a car, So you're saying a misused car CAN NOT Cause bodily harm that does not result in death. You can misfire a gun and only hurt someone, just like you can hit someone with a car and not kill them.

Sorry, but you don't hunt targets and you don't need a semi-automatic to hit one. There is no challenge in shooting a target with a semi-automatic weapon. It's not a sport, its a way to jack-off.

You miss the point. The point is about risk. If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.

You've been missing points as well

[trish]

It's intended civilian purpose.Now you're just making things up. Semi-automatic weapons are DESIGNED FOR KILLING. There's no getting around it.


You contradicted yourself No, I didn't and I explained why not (I didn't say automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned because they kill, but because they are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life. Civilian use includes hunting.) You have only indicated an alternate use for semi-automatic weapons which is ulterior to it's design (yes you can use sabers to open champagne bottles but that is not the purpose of a saber). You have yet to point out the contradiction. The tact demeans you.


If guns had the sole purpose of killing, they would not be sold to anyone, ever, anywhere right? Wrong. It's not illegal to hunt, or to calibrate your sights by shooting in your hunting rifle at a target.


You don't vilify cars even when though when misused they kill people.Of course not. I vilify careless drivers, careless gun owners and sometimes careful gun owners even when they're using their weapons for they're designed use. That's the difference. Guns are DESIGNED TO KILL. Cars are not.


So you're saying a misused car CAN NOT Cause bodily harm that does not result in death.No. I am not. READ CAREFULLY. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.



You've been missing points as wellNice non-response to a valid point. I take then you agree. If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.

[my my my!]

Now you're just making things up. Semi-automatic weapons are DESIGNED FOR KILLING. There's no getting around it.

Making what up? Getting around what? The fact is that they're sold to civilians for safe use. And they're misused by idiots. If you want really want to get technical, they're designed for firing a projectile at a high speed. In the military this is for killing, with civilians this is for target shooting/hunting/collection/display, why can't you make that distinction?.

No, I didn't and I explained why not (I didn't say automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned because they kill, but because they are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life. Civilian use includes hunting.) You have only indicated an alternate use for semi-automatic weapons which is ulterior to it's design (yes you can use sabers to open champagne bottles but that is not the purpose of a saber). You have yet to point out the contradiction. The tact demeans you.

I pointed out the contradiction clearly, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Wrong. It's not illegal to hunt, or to calibrate your sights by shooting in your hunting rifle at a target.
Just as it is not illegal to calibrate your gun for non lethal target shooting. You assume guns are only for killing. But I already know you can not see that point so no use of bringing it up anymore.

Of course not. I vilify careless drivers, careless gun owners and sometimes careful gun owners even when they're using their weapons for they're designed use. That's the difference. Guns are DESIGNED TO KILL. Cars are not.
So you'll vilify a driver that drives carelessly, but you wont vilify that it is indeed a bad person that misuses (because the gun is sold for recreational use) a gun? That is a contradiction. Again, you don't see it.

No. I am not. READ CAREFULLY. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.
I read quite clearly, at this point you just keep repeating yourself saying the same thing over and over again. You are deciding what is the proper way of using a gun, in your mind it is to kill and nothing else.

Nice non-response to a valid point. I take then you agree. If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.[/QUOTE]
I agree that a gun being misused can be a risk. But so can a knife, rope, a roof to jump off of. A roof is to provide shelter. Not to jump off as this could result in injury or death. Depressed/psychotic individuals use roofs as they were not intened to. A gun sold to civilians is NOT (I already know your answer Trish, and you are incorrect) for killing humans. Animals yes. But so is a bow and arrow.

The fact is , you're quite set in YOUR viewpoint that:
A: guns are only designed for killing and therefore cannot be used for anything else without it being some sort of jack off substitution

B: Cars are meant to drive , therefore are excused from vilification and not comparable to guns

C: you did not contradict yourself, even though you have several times

D: you pick what guns people deserve, based on YOUR habits and preferences although they might not agree with you.

Now how I feel:

A: a gun is an object originally designed exclusively for killing, but Is now sold legally for target shooting/hunting/collection and display

B: you actually make anti-gun people look bad

C: It is pointless to continue addressing you directly in this matter. Although that does not affect my other opinion of you, which is that you're pretty cool

D: There does need to be legislation, regardless of how you and I , or anyone else on this forum feels about guns and gun violence.



:)

[hippifried]

You're all way off topic. Nobody cares about "gun deaths" any more than they care about death from heart disease. People are bent out of shape over the deliberate killings, especially the domestic terrorism in the form of mass shootings that's becoming more frequent. The tool is the only part of this that can be controlled at all through legislation. Anything else would require recognizing & admitting who the terrorists are. But apparently, delving into that aspect just opens a whole new vault of off topic ad hominem bullshit that further obfuscates the point. Oh well... I guess we're stuck talking about curing social ills by withholding some of the things that infect, & help assholes be sick.

BTW: ATF got lumped together like that because they were originally a tax collecting agency of the Treasury Department. Taxation was the preferred & perhaps the only form of regulation during reconstruction & up through the depressions. The bureau was given to the Justice Department in 2002.

[buttslinger]

I wrote a long sarcastic piece, but it got too personal so I deleted it.
The gist was that being the Policemen of the World, and maintaining prisons and mental facilities costs tons of money, and is costing the average American more than they're getting back, there are hidden taxes everywhere, and the 1950s family is shot to hell, girls have to work 50 hour weeks too, so they can have two hours of peace a day in front of the TV. Money = Freedom It's not the Mitt Romneys that are shooting people, it's the people that have been pushed to the limit. And that's getting to be more and more people.

[trish]

they're designed for firing a projectile at a high speed.You're characterization is way to general. What distinguishes a gun from an automatic ball thrower it that a gun is DESIGNED TO KILL. Yes, you may find other purposes for a semi-automatic weapon and sell it for those purposes. But it was designed to kill, not butcher targets while giving the shooter an erection.


I pointed out the contradiction clearlyI'm afraid you don't know what a contradiction is. You have to show that I claimed two propositions, one having the form "not-p" if the other had the form "p."


You assume guns are only for killing.Wrong. They can be used to break bottles. But they are DESIGNED FOR KILLING.


you wont vilify that it is indeed a bad person that misusesI do and have in the last post indicated my abhorrence of a bad people who misuse guns. I simply also vilify bad people who do not misuse but use guns for the purposes for which they were designed; i.e. killing other people.


I agree that a gun being misused can be a risk. But so can a knife, rope, a roof to jump off of.So you believe that someone who has a roof put on their home is placing their family at risk; the same amount of risk as keeping a firearm in the home?


guns are only designed for killing and therefore cannot be used for anything else without it being some sort of jack off substitution
Of course they can be used for all sorts of things. Hammering nails. Even target shooting. But you cannot deny they are DESIGNED FOR KILLING. I'm not even against competitive target shooting, or target shooting just for fun. Someone might even buy a gun for that purpose alone. It may be sold for that purpose. Nevertheless, that gun was DESIGNED FOR KILLING and that is what distinguishes it from a car.


you pick what guns people deserve, based on YOUR habits and preferences although they might not agree with you.Sorry, I don't get to pick what guns people use or deserve. If I did, I would ban semi-automatic weapons because they were not designed to serve civilian purposes, regardless of the fact that civilians put them various purposes ulterior to their design. I'm sure I can find a really cool, safe and peaceful use for a nuclear warhead. That doesn't mean it wasn't designed for mass destruction and that it's just too dangerous to allow me to own one.


a gun is an object originally designed exclusively for killing, but Is now sold legally for target shooting/hunting/collection and displayI "feel" the same way. I also think some guns shouldn't be legally sold for those purposes.


you actually make anti-gun people look badI'm sorry you feel that way. But I'm not an anti-gun person. I'm actually a gun-person who would like to see some rational limits placed on gun owners. There are too many accidents, too many suicides and too many murders perpetrated with semi-automatic weapons.


It is pointless to continue addressing you directly in this matter. Although that does not affect my other opinion of you, which is that you're pretty cool
I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind. But other people will also read our conversation and perhaps be swayed to your or my view. In any case, thanks for the conversation and the complement.


There does need to be legislation, regardless of how you and I , or anyone else on this forum feels about guns and gun violence. Agreed. And I do like the post you made some pages back suggesting some of the things that should be in that legislation.

[my my my!]

You're characterization is way to general. What distinguishes a gun from an automatic ball thrower it that a gun is DESIGNED TO KILL. Yes, you may find other purposes for a semi-automatic weapon and sell it for those purposes. But it was designed to kill, not butcher targets while giving the shooter an erection.

Where do you get this assumption, that someone gets an erection while shooting? And you think mine is a generalization? I stated a fact, not a guess about people getting an erection

I'm afraid you don't know what a contradiction is. You have to show that I claimed two propositions, one having the form "not-p" if the other had the form "p."

I know exactly what a contradiction is, and you contradicted yourself. That is all. I'm not going to re-quote and paste your comments and outline everything that led me to that conclusion.

Wrong. They can be used to break bottles. But they are DESIGNED FOR KILLING.
No, for the military now they are designed for killing humans. For civilian use, they are designed for hunting/target shooting/collection and display. There is a difference. (see Hummer vs Humvee analogy later)


So you believe that someone who has a roof put on their home is placing their family at risk; the same amount of risk as keeping a firearm in the home?
No, I'm saying that the person who is suicidal/homicidal will still commit the act regardless of firearms being in the house. It does not make a roof "bad". Just like that does not make a firearm "bad".


Of course they can be used for all sorts of things. Hammering nails. Even target shooting. But you cannot deny they are DESIGNED FOR KILLING. I'm not even against competitive target shooting, or target shooting just for fun. Someone might even buy a gun for that purpose alone. It may be sold for that purpose. Nevertheless, that gun was DESIGNED FOR KILLING and that is what distinguishes it from a car.

Original military Design and intent, and intended use for civilians are two very different things. A Humvee was released and DESIGNED in a civilian version aka "Hummer", that does not mean people are going to but a 50 cal machine gun on it and patrol in it.

Sorry, I don't get to pick what guns people use or deserve. If I did, I would ban semi-automatic weapons because they were not designed to serve civilian purposes, regardless of the fact that civilians put them various purposes ulterior to their design. I'm sure I can find a really cool, safe and peaceful use for a nuclear warhead. That doesn't mean it wasn't designed for mass destruction and that it's just too dangerous to allow me to own one.

But with you wanting to exclude or suggesting exclusion of semiautos because of your prerogative is in essence "picking" what people use or deserve based on your own experience and beliefs.

I "feel" the same way. I also think some guns shouldn't be legally sold for those purposes.

see point above.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But I'm not an anti-gun person. I'm actually a gun-person who would like to see some rational limits placed on gun owners. There are too many accidents, too many suicides and too many murders perpetrated with semi-automatics weapons.

I agree about limits. Rational differs depending on who you ask in this case., Sorry If I mistakenly associated you with anti-gun but some of your points seem to lean you heavily that way. You're saying "ban/take away the weapons I DONT agree with, but leave me mine".

I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind. But other people will also read our conversation and perhaps be swayed to your or my view. In any case, thanks for the conversation and the complement.
Likewise, no hate or apathy implied. :)

Agreed. And I do like the post you made some pages back suggesting some of the things that should be in that legislation. [/QUOTE]
Thank you.

[broncofan]

Unfortunately... you miss each point I made.

1st - There should be regulation regarding gun ownership greater than exists today.
2nd - The first point means that I am in favor of gun ownership - if the first point can be accomplished.

3rd - The numbers are important. Gun deaths are like shark attacks - they take a greater proportion of attention then appropriate. Guns are easy news stories with easy taglines that can be exploited.
I understood each point. Your use of statistics was just inept in my view. The issue is not how many deaths are caused by a particular factor but the number of preventable deaths. To analyze what can be done to make a device safer one must consider risk and utility. How much would it cost to avoid a certain number of deaths? What utility is given up in avoiding those deaths? If there are available means of preventing thousands of deaths and they are not taken, this attracts attention.

The examples you gave are not comparable. Of course there are things that kill more people than guns; that does not mean that they are susceptible to a solution or further that a great deal is not being done already. So again, another important consideration would be the sufficiency of the regulatory structure in place to address that area. As I stated, pharmaceuticals are much more heavily regulated than guns and have much greater utility. If any industry deserves immunity it's one that develops products that improve quality of life rather than inherently dangerous products with little value. I think issues of obesity and environmental cancers do not get the attention they should. But doing something to prevent obesity would not crowd out the attention given to the issue of guns, in which as you say there are good public policy solutions.

Edit: Just in case you aren't reading between the lines of my argument it is this. You cannot say gun deaths get more attention than they deserve by simply showing the number of deaths by cause. This would imply that an issue only gets attention based on how many people die. Here are some suggestions for why certain things attract attention. If the death could have been prevented by modest regulation, people tend to pay more attention. If it is the result of a criminal act and the criminal has been facilitated by loose regulation, people will pay attention. Again, this all goes to avoidability and the cost of avoidance. The lower the cost of avoidance, the more public outrage will be engendered when the unattractive outcome is not in fact avoided.

[volkov2006]

74 days since Newtown and 2284 gun deaths, up 22 since yesterday.

[mrtrebus]

Ban guns!

[trish]

Where do you get this assumption, that someone gets an erection while shooting? And you think mine is a generalization?Someone certainly does. I never said everyone does. That would be a generalization. Nevertheless, it remains the case that what distinguishes a gun from an automatic ball thrower is the former was designed to kill, the latter was not.


I know exactly what a contradiction is...The evidence is against it.


No, for the military now they are designed for killing humans. For civilian use, they are designed for hunting/target shooting/collection and display. Yet one designer can patent a single design, have two guns built exactly in accord with that design and yet one will be used to kill and the other solely for target shooting. Two guns built in accordance with one design. It is a bit sophomoric to keep insisting that guns are not designed for killing.


But with you wanting to exclude or suggesting exclusion of semiautos because of your prerogative is in essence "picking" what people use or deserve based on your own experience and beliefs.Well, I would scratch the phrase "in essence 'picking' what people use or deserve," ('cause the essence of picking what people use is actually picking what people use) but other than that you got it. All us have only our own experiences and beliefs to go on (as long as "experiences" is interpreted broadly; so as for example to include our conversation here).

Later.

[my my my!]

Someone certainly does. I never said everyone does. That would be a generalization. Nevertheless, it remains the case that what distinguishes a gun from an automatic ball thrower is the former was designed to kill, the latter was not.

Someone certainly does? show proof. you're just making up stuff, and you did do the generalization of jacking off for non-hunters .

the evidence is against it

the proof is in your posts of you contradicting your own statements. you just don't realize it.

Yet one designer can patent a single design, have two guns built exactly in accord with that design and yet one will be used to kill and the other solely for target shooting. Two guns built in accordance with one design. It is a bit sophomoric to keep insisting that guns are not designed for killing.
It is actually sophomoric to insist that guns are designed only for killing, if that was the case they wouldn't sell them to people. But they do, because they know most can handle them responsibly.

Well, I would scratch the phrase "in essence 'picking' what people use or deserve," ('cause the essence of picking what people use is actually picking what people use) but other than that you got it. All us have only our own experiences and beliefs to go on (as long as "experiences" is interpreted broadly; so as for example to include our conversation here).
you say people don't NEED full autos(i agree) and semi autos (disagree). That's your belief. Just because you and I think they don't NEED doesn't mean the shouldn't be able to buy them.

Later
Bye Trish :) ttyl

[trish]

I said semi-automatics were designed to kill, not butcher targets and give erections. If you think this logically implies all target shooters get erections, then you need a lesson in logic as well as physiology. I used the "jerkoff metaphor" for target shooting with a semi-automtic (not as you say, for non-hunters). Sorry but target shooting with semi-automatics is not a sport. You do it for the kick, not the challenge. There is no challenge. Sorry, if I implied the kick is sexual. But if your posting about guns on a Tgirl web site, one has a right to wonder.

There is as yet no evidence that you understand logic of any kind, let alone what constitutes a contradiction.

Belief based on evidence is all anybody has.

[hippifried]

I wrote a long sarcastic piece, but it got too personal so I deleted it.
The gist was that being the Policemen of the World, and maintaining prisons and mental facilities costs tons of money, and is costing the average American more than they're getting back, there are hidden taxes everywhere, and the 1950s family is shot to hell, girls have to work 50 hour weeks too, so they can have two hours of peace a day in front of the TV. Money = Freedom It's not the Mitt Romneys that are shooting people, it's the people that have been pushed to the limit. And that's getting to be more and more people.

Huh? What limit? By whom? You're not really trying to claim that these terrorists are actually the victims here, are you? Which of those assholes was economically challenged or stressed? Colorado theater guy? How about the macho epitome of bravery in Newtown? I guess it was the Sikhs who cleaned out that dude's bank account & pushed him over the edge to go shoot up their temple during service. Hmmmm... Nah. More likely is that he didn't like the price of gas that day, & was just too stupid to know the difference between Sikhs & Muslims. A rag head's a rag head, right? & that's real important because... Well... It's not the Romneys or their ilk who are pocketing that extra 5 cents at the pump while convincing this genius to be a terrorist...

There's no economic spin to be had here.

[my my my!]

I said semi-automatics were designed to kill, not butcher targets and give erections. If you think this logically implies all target shooters get erections, then you need a lesson in logic as well as physiology. I used the "jerkoff metaphor" for target shooting with a semi-automtic (not as you say, for non-hunters). Sorry but target shooting with semi-automatics is not a sport. You do it for the kick, not the challenge. There is no challenge. Sorry, if I implied the kick is sexual. But if your posting about guns on a Tgirl web site, one has a right to wonder.



Again, for the semi autos, it may not be(or you do not consider it) a challenge or sport to you, but it is to others. Who are you to make the assumption that there is no challenge? Competitive shooters will tell you otherwise.

Posting on a tgirl forum's "politics and religion" section is why we avoid the sexual aspect of this subject. smh...

There is as yet no evidence that you understand logic of any kind, let alone what constitutes a contradiction.
There is no evidence that you yourself understand logic as you have failed to recognize previous examples of logical analgoies, your previous posts are proof of that. You have yet to recognize the contradictions (now it's multiple) in your own posts.

Belief based on evidence is all anybody has.
This is true to a logic based belief, but to the passion based belief, evidence is ignored or not sought after resulting in what others see as spectacular or ludicrous beliefs.

[trish]

I don't mind being accused (as you did) of basing my position on my beliefs and experiences. You may ignore all the evidence you like in the name of your passion. I will continue to examine and analyze all of it. To now turn around and accuse me of doing otherwise would involve you in a contradiction.

[my my my!]

I don't mind being accused (as you did) of basing my position on my beliefs and experiences. You may ignore all the evidence you like in the name of your passion. I will continue to examine and analyze all of it. To now turn around and accuse me of doing otherwise would involve you in a contradiction.

What evidence? That in your opinion since guns were originally designed to kill that's all they STILL are? Yea, that's some really good evidence...

I personally have only stated fact that you choose to ignore because of YOUR passionate beliefs.

If anyone is talking through passion and not analyzing , it is you.

[trish]

my my my, aren't we all in a passion?

[buttslinger]

Huh? What limit? By whom? You're not really trying to claim that these terrorists are actually the victims here, are you?


No no, hipster, my writing skills .....sigh...

I'm saying when gun laws are enforced, who do you think pays for it? YOU DO!! I'm talking real money. Goods and Services. Actual cash from your pocket.Do you really want to foot the bill to put a bunch of stupid crackers in jail?

[my my my!]

my my my, aren't we all in a passion?

Kind of, I heart <3 you :kiss:

[martin48]

That's OK then - all kiss and makeup. You get to keep your automatic weapons

[fivekatz]

No no, hipster, my writing skills .....sigh...

I'm saying when gun laws are enforced, who do you think pays for it? YOU DO!! I'm talking real money. Goods and Services. Actual cash from your pocket.Do you really want to foot the bill to put a bunch of stupid crackers in jail?Sure. All the poor pot smokers who are needlessly in jail and need somebody to keep them company and who better than Larry The Cable Man and Bush 43?

[brickcitybrother]

http://i.imgur.com/myAh0qN.jpg

Found this and couldn't help myself.

Anyway.

Why the naming calling during a debate?

Any way if you were truly interested in preventable deaths... then my point would not be lost on you. The killings are scary with assault weapons (but making all assault weapons disappear tomorrow wouldn't have any significant impact on the killing). No one wants to admit that the cat is out of the bag, the horse has left the barn, we have falling down the slippery slope - guns are here and they are here in sufficient numbers to stay. It is much better to regulate than to attempt an all out ban. Didn't this country attempt this logic with prohibition (that great experiment failed as will the current 'war' on most drugs). There is a bigger issue few want to touch regarding this debate thanks to my my my! (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/member.php?u=88057) and others who realize that there is a bigger issue than taking someone's AR-15 away.

[fivekatz]

http://i.imgur.com/myAh0qN.jpg

Found this and couldn't help myself.

Anyway.

Why the naming calling during a debate?

Any way if you were truly interested in preventable deaths... then my point would not be lost on you. The killings are scary with assault weapons (but making all assault weapons disappear tomorrow wouldn't have any significant impact on the killing). No one wants to admit that the cat is out of the bag, the horse has left the barn, we have falling down the slippery slope - guns are here and they are here in sufficient numbers to stay. It is much better to regulate than to attempt an all out ban. Didn't this country attempt this logic with prohibition (that great experiment failed as will the current 'war' on most drugs). There is a bigger issue few want to touch regarding this debate thanks to my my my! (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/member.php?u=88057) and others who realize that there is a bigger issue than taking someone's AR-15 away.There may be bigger debates but you'd have a hard time telling an LAPD officer facing down a guy with a bullet proof vest and a AR-15 with pockets full of magazines that assault weapons aren't an issue.

Sure this isn't the only issue in our 21st Century civilization but it is a big one. And we can change it if we show any will at all or we can pretend that the unfettered policies of gun ownership in our country are not a problem, just like we pretended 50 years ago that segregation wash't an issue worth tackling and 30 years ago pretended the AIDS wasn't a issue worth talking about.

The American people need to say NO F'ING MORE. More guns make us lesser and fewer guns will make us a better people. There are lots of answers, if you simply held manufactures liable for the damage their weapons do, they would lead the charge to limit distribution.

But regardless of what the answers are, no one can tell me a country as great as I believe my country is can accept the mayhem that our current gun laws facilitate.

It is time to say no F'ing more, but sadly as every day passes and the corpses of the babies of Newtown get colder, the willingness to fight the forces has grown colder in fighting those that have allowed weapons of mass destruction to be purchased at gun shows as a casual exercise of the 2nd Amendment.

These arguments about old age, cancer, auto accidents and other terrible events being distractions from the carnage of our allowing gun manufactures to freely sell these weapons of death misses the point. Every other thing that causes death is worthy of a spirited fight BUT that does not change that gun culture in America is needy of change.

The saddest part of the fight to bear arms is almost everyone fighting that battle would instantly find new perspective if their mother, wife, father, husband or god forbid child was struck down needlessly by a weapon that had no other purpose than to kill a human.

[volkov2006]

75 days since Newtown 2321 gun deaths up by 37 yesterday.

[martin48]

... and counting ....

[broncofan]

I can't for the life of me figure out who called you a name brickcity. I said your use of statistics was inept. Any time you use a statistic in order to say one thing and it says something quite different the usage is inept. I already pretty clearly rebutted the conclusion you attempted to generate from your statistics, which you've had no response to and so now you've resorted to posting pictures.

Perhaps great white sharks create more fear than the total number of deaths would justify. That does not mean that guns also do even if there are things that cause a greater number of deaths (another inept inference). There are ways to regulate guns other than by banning them. We agree on that. Because you did not read my first post you missed the part where I discussed products liability immunity for gun manufacturers. If manufacturers were not immune from suit even for irresponsible marketing (as the PLCAA has sometimes been interpreted), they would have an incentive to be more responsible. Would this prevent all gun deaths? No but based on the paradigm for other regulated industries, it should be tried. Why should a product with little utility be regulated less stringently than one with great utility?

I'd like to thank Trish and RobertLouis and fivekatz and all of the people in this thread who write sensible things about the need for improved regulation of guns. If you think I was name-calling (which I wasn't) you should be glad I didn't recommend an article on mastering the then/than distinction that seems to be giving you so much trouble. I figured if I did mention it you would write a long self-pitying post about how your arguments may not appear sophisticated but that they are informed by a sort of inborn common sense that goes beyond mere booksmarts. But just to clear this up, then and than are not the same word and cannot be used interchangeably.

[Ben]

Libertarian Worried U.N. Will Take His Guns & His Pizza:

Libertarian Worried U.N. Will Take His Guns & His Pizza - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu3q2xIrC4Y)

[buttslinger]

In my Father's time there really weren't that many senseless killings, unless you count the 50 million civilians killed in WWII. While I admit this has nothing to do with THIS debate, ....these are the times we live in. John Lennon wrote "Imagine" and he was shot to death. The word is out. It's better to love than hate. Usually it's the people who have been kicked around, fairly or unfairly, sometimes by invisible inner demons, who are the problem. People were killing people long before the machine gun was invented. I'm cynical. So Kill me...
I'm sure there will be some changes to the law, only because of the insanity of Newtown. After Columbine my neice's school did away with her after-school Shakespeare club, because the nationwide schoolboard memo went around to break up all the geek cliques. Oh, What fools these mortals be.

[volkov2006]

76 days since Newtown and 2338 gun deaths up by 17 since yesterday.

[trish]

In my Father's time there really weren't that many senseless killings, unless ...Probably true enough. But all through history there has been no lack of crazy, psycho, sociopathic killers. I would guess the density of cold, heartless, serial murders is no greater today, than at other times. They just have more effective means now at their disposal. It's the same reason each war is worse than the last. As the technology advances, so does the mayhem.

[fred41]

Probably true enough. But all through history there has been no lack of crazy, psycho, sociopathic killers. I would guess the density of cold, heartless, serial murders is no greater today, than at other times. They just have more effective means now at their disposal. ......

....agree,plus our population more than doubled since 1945 , so I would infer that our crazy,psycho, sociopathic killers did too. The internet changes the game quite a bit also.

[buttslinger]

How come all the psycho-killers are male?

[robertlouis]

How come all the psycho-killers are male?

Aileen Wornos?

[brickcitybrother]

broncofan (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/member.php?u=37686)

You truly believe that a change in product liability law will result in greater protections for all of us. Are you serious? You can't be because your premise is that assault weapons are inherently dangerous. Meaning it is not feasible to make a 'safer' assault weapon. Yes, I read your post regarding product liability law - but realized you had no true concept of the law and chose you ignore the comment. But since you think I missed it, I will address it. Making manufacturers civilly liable for flawed design (which product liability law addresses) will in no way result in changes to our safety. Unless of course you know of a better way to make a safer weapon (much less an assault weapon). Please educate me, no in fact, educate all of us, on the 'safer' gun design that you have. Once you read that the US Supreme Court decisions that have recognized that there does not exist a 'safer' gun design - then you realize that the products liability law is no answer (unless your a plaintiff's attorney who will file a class action that will result in pennies being paid to victims, while your own pockets are lined with millions in settlement money fees). This does not mention that resulting to civil law (and lawsuits) allows manufactures to assert as a defense the actions of the shooter 'as an intervening act' that they are not responsible nor liable for. Assault weapons are the boogie man - you're afraid of the boogie man.

Again - make every single gun transfer subject to background checks. Make the failure to do so result in 5 five year prison term. Its simple that straw buyers will no longer have an incentive in doing so. It will also prevent the 'oh I sold my gun to a friend' issue that often comes up.

It is simple.

It is also simple that once there is an attempt to ban any weapon - gun enthusiasts (or gun nuts as described by yourself and others or the NRA) will go ape-shit draping themselves in the 2nd Amendment. Idiotic as that maybe - it repeated happens. We will not succeed in having such a prohibition. Equally idiotic will be the other side clamoring for the complete ban on certain weapons. The debate will be bogged down and little will occur legislatively.

You do not intend to understand my position - which is your right. You clearly intend to continue your argument regarding assault weapons as the big bad boogie man - that only if we could be rid of them - we will live in everlasting harmony. But the reality is that less than 1% of people murdered were killed by an assault weapon. I am for the 99% who may be helped by a change in our collective treatment of gun ownership and transfer. While I do not suggest my ideas will stop all gun violence, I would much rather address 99% of the problem and thereby 99% of the victims than concern myself only with 1% (even if that 1% is of the most horrible acts our society suffers).

You don't like my comparisons - fine. You cannot attach my statistics, so you attack my analysis - fine as well. You attack me personally - equally acceptable. But I ask you ... do you really think I am wrong for trying to address the larger problem that affects 99% of the victims? Perhaps you do. Perhaps you'll come up with some other insult to hurl at me, my analysis, my logic - be that as it may. Well good luck on your attempt to ban weapons that are already in the public. Equal luck with your falling into argument that NRA loves (and tricks most of its membership into believing that a 'gun ban' may become a reality). Perhaps civil suits (which takes years to go to trial, if they are not settled before hand) is the way to effectuate change country-wide change. But I would argue otherwise and tell you to talk to the plaintiffs in the suits by American Indians, victims of environmental contamination (e.g. Love Canal), asbestos litigants and so on - if their lawsuits have won country-wide change [as opposed to lining the pockets of the attorneys on both sides].

Well I await your next insult.

P.S. Why are you so fascinated with my avatar name of brickcitybrother? Your continual suggestion that my name should endow me with some special attributes leaves me at a lost. Its a name. Its an avatar/screen name. Its not that serious. If you want to know its origin - simply ask. You need not assume. In a forum like this - there are not many secrets people are keeping. At least not here.



Again written in 8 or so minutes - excuse any spelling/grammatical errors.

[brickcitybrother]

Aileen Wornos?

There was also Dorothea Puente... who killed elderly residents of her boarding house, cashing their social security checks and forging letters to families to keep up appearances. This was during the 80s. I think she died in prison in last year or so.

[broncofan]

Brickcity,
I didn't say anything about your screenname. I said I did not call you a name. What you say about products liability law is not exactly right. The requirement of a reasonable or feasible alternative design is not dispositive of design defect in most states. The Third Restatement's invention of the feasible alternative design standard has been rejected by most courts as a dispositive requirement but is used as a factor to consider in the risk utility consideration. When I say inherently dangerous I do not mean to say it is like the 3 foot deep swimming pools people were diving into. At least not with respect to all guns but rather certain types whose only utility is to maim innocents because as a defensive weapon, the effectiveness is slim.

What you say about criminal acts being a superceding cause or intervening act is an attack on causation. This is not something that is uniformly applied in the common law, but has required regulations and statutes to be passed to exempt manufacturers for the actions of criminals with their products. In fact, it is not a principle of cause in fact at all; that is it has nothing to do with whether there is an unbroken chain of causation such that one can say a product is the but for cause of the tort. It is a product of what is called proximate cause, which in tort law means that at some point even when cause in fact is established, courts do not want to hold people liable for the unforeseeable results of their actions. Proximate cause is an artifact of policy, so that liability can be limited to that which can be foreseen and manufacturers can properly insure their risks.

BTW a defense usually means an affirmative defense for which the defendant has the burden of proof once the prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff. It does not usually refer to those arguments used to rebut the prima facie case such as the lack of proximate cause or cause in fact. And yes, products liability would change the way manufacturers make guns. Various cases were held in favor of plaintiffs and reversed on appeal. There were issues of conduct, which are not held in strict liability but based on negligent marketing. Further, if products liability would not have resulted in liability for manufacturers, why would there have been a need to pass a federal statute to pre-empt tort law which is typically within the province of the states to decide (all you state's rights advocates take heed)?

And if your argument then morphs into a claim that perhaps they'd have been held liable but they would not have responded by developing safer products, we could look at the behavior of other manufacturer's held liable for their products. A design defect finding basically makes a product susceptible to attack from any individual whose harm it caused. It is a referendum on an entire product line. It would not effectively ban all guns but would rather make the production of certain types of guns unprofitable once the external costs are internalized.

BTW, did you do some research on the legal issues? Not to be condescending but you got most of it right. My claim is the federal law meant that strict liability was not able to develop in this arena. The common law is not static as new circumstances challenge old paradigms. As I said the federal law would not have been passed if the legislature did not think the shield were necessary.

[broncofan]

broncofan (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/member.php?u=37686)



You don't like my comparisons - fine. You cannot attach my statistics, so you attack my analysis - fine as well. You attack me personally - equally acceptable. But I would argue otherwise and tell you to talk to the plaintiffs in the suits by American Indians, victims of environmental contamination (e.g. Love Canal), asbestos litigants and so on - if their lawsuits have won country-wide change [as opposed to lining the pockets of the attorneys on both sides].

Well I await your next insult.

.
There's no such thing as statistics without analysis. There's no point in posting numbers if they are not to render one argument or another more effective. The statistics have to say what you want them to say otherwise they are bare figures.

We are confusing two things. There are two major policy objectives in tort law. One is redress for the victims. Another is to deter wrongful conduct. You seem to be saying that wrongful conduct has not been deterred because victims have not been properly compensated. If there was a large payout, it would make it irrational for a manufacturer aware of the precedent to make products for which they will have to make similar payouts. I think you said in a previous post that plaintiff's attorneys get too big a cut, which would be relevant to the redress of victims but not necessarily to the deterrence function, since money would be paid out but would not necessarily go to the right party.

Products liability does not eliminate unsafe products but it does reduce their number. If there are not regulatory agencies in place ensuring product safety, at least manufacturers can be forced to internalize the costs imposed on others by their products.

Edit: just in case you miss it I respond to your legal arguments in the previous post.

[volkov2006]

77 days since Newtown and 2363 gun deaths up by 25 since yesterday.

[brickcitybrother]

There's no such thing as statistics without analysis. There's no point in posting numbers if they are not to render one argument or another more effective. The statistics have to say what you want them to say otherwise they are bare figures.

We are confusing two things. There are two major policy objectives in tort law. One is redress for the victims. Another is to deter wrongful conduct. You seem to be saying that wrongful conduct has not been deterred because victims have not been properly compensated. If there was a large payout, it would make it irrational for a manufacturer aware of the precedent to make products for which they will have to make similar payouts. I think you said in a previous post that plaintiff's attorneys get too big a cut, which would be relevant to the redress of victims but not necessarily to the deterrence function, since money would be paid out but would not necessarily go to the right party.

Products liability does not eliminate unsafe products but it does reduce their number. If there are not regulatory agencies in place ensuring product safety, at least manufacturers can be forced to internalize the costs imposed on others by their products.

Edit: just in case you miss it I respond to your legal arguments in the previous post.

.
.

Your legal training is fine -though it is clear you are not a personal injury attorney (plaintiff or defense). However, perhaps if you read the actual Restatement of Torts article you would under my point better. When plaintiff's tried products cases under the strict liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities/Products they were initially successful with litigation against the gun known as the Saturday Night Special. However, state legislatures have gutted the claim when the courts did not. The Design Defect claims are also ineffective because both of federal legislation and all state jurisdictions requiring that a Design Defect claim allege adefect in the gun that caused it tomalfunction.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have tried to have courts interpreted design defects to include product designs that pose unreasonable risks only where the unreasonable risks result from a particular design feature that renders the design defective. However, courts have required that in order to recover under this approach, the plaintiff must identify a particular design feature that is defective and then prove that this design feature rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. The identification of a defective design feature, the 'defect', serves as a threshold requirement to considering if the design poses unreasonable risks. Unlike the first approach, this approach does not impose liability for product designs that pose unreasonable risks generic to the basic design of all products of that type. It limits liability to product designs that pose unreasonable risks that result from particular design features considered defective. This has not been successful either as the usual interpretation a the manufacturer subject to liability when its product includes a 'design feature' (e.g. defect) which caused the product to perform in a way not contemplated by a reasonable consumer, to operate less safely than a reasonable alternative design, or to malfunction and, as a result, rendered it unreasonably unsafe, is the manufacturer subject to liability.

Law Review articles have suggested that a simple 'risk-utility test' for design defect would be successful. But talk with the ATLA guys (who know now call themselves the American Association for Justice) about the millions they spent on that theory only to be beaten with a defense of assumption for the buyers (who made informed decisions to purchase such products) and then beaten again by the statistics that don't bear out the risk to third parties out weigh the product's utility (360 million guns and less than 36,000 deaths). Better yet, in the battle of the experts there was not response to the following analysis

Nearly a dozen (11 to be exact) nationwide surveys concerning
defensive gun use, conducted estimated that there are between
760,000 and 3.6 million defensive gun uses per year. During these
uses, only a 1,000 to 3,000 involved the killing of an assailant, with
only 8,000 to 16,000 sixteen thousand involving the wounding of an
assailant. An extremely conservative analysis demonstrates that more
than 97% of defensive gun uses involve showing or merely referring
to the gun. It seems a that for a criminal, given these numbers,
facing a victim with a gun is more likely than arrest and far more likely
than incarceration. And unlike the reactive nature of a police
response, defensive gun use preempts crime before it happens.

[Paraphrased from DON KATES, JR. & GARY KLECK, THE GREAT AMERICAN GUN DEBATE:ESSAYS ON FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE] I did not want to weigh this down with cites but I knew I had to provide some backup for this one.


The plaintiffs' attorney have also tried 'design defect' claims that allege a defect in the gun under the "reasonablealternative" design test. This too has been unsuccessful as technologies that incorporate safety features such as locking devices would serve to “personalize” guns, making them useless to non-authorizedusers haven't been successful technologically or practically. Old fashion gun locks are easily defeated - ask anyone who's has had his bike stolen with the same tech. New tech [imbedded fingerprint scanners or radio ring triggers] is no where near prime time.

The best case for a case against gun manufacturers came in the best state California, with the best case scenario: A mass shooting with an military assault weapon -the TEC 9. [Actually, it was a TEC DC9 which was worse than the original.] The best plaintiffs' attorney got together and sued Intratec, the American sub of Interdynamic AB, which was actually operating as Navegar. 8 years after the case was dismissed on summary judgment, (meaning no trial, no huge verdict, no headlines), the California Supreme Court threw the plaintiff's out of court on every theory (even their negligent marketing claim based on the manufacturer's violation of California statutory law regarding the marketing of handguns).

I saved that case and point for last, because it illustratesthe points I was making that you did not address. 8 years after the best plaintiffs' attorneys, in the most liberal state, with the most liberal laws, with some of the most strigent gun laws, with the most liberal judiciary in the nation, with amass murderer using a 'non hunting' 'killing machine' of a gun to kill innocents - still are tossed out of court before a jury is even selected.

Please, tell me where do you think you're going with the 'sue the manufacturers' to get this society safe from gunstheory! Oh I get it, you will personally argue to Justice Scalia (who by the way wrote the opinion that Washington, DC cannot have a restrictive ban on guns under the 2nd Amendment - District of Columbia v. Heller) to change his mind and/or that of Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Thomas (who always goes against Scalia) or maybe you can appeal to the intellect of Alito (who while on the 3rd Circuit wrote a dissenting opinion which would have let a man who illegally purchased and possessed fully automatic machines go free because he did not believe Congress had the authority under Commerce Clause to trump the 2nd Amendment to ban the sale of fully automatic weapons).

Of course this is really just intellectual masturbation right? I've indicated previously and you say you acknowledge that Congress pretty much closed every door to suing gun manufacturers. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, covers both and state and federal court civil liability for almost all negligence and products liability claims.

Enough of jerking off.




P.S. And yes you kept referring to my name in your posts attacking my opinions and now you back away from it - fine. Can we simply leave that you do not like being challenged and enjoy argument (like most attorneys who find joy in the argument as opposed to finding solutions). I have offered a viable step going forward (perhaps not a complete solution if there is one). I am only offering support to my opinion - not ridicule or derision (though I am not above a small amount of sarcasm).

With that said - I think I will leave this discussion hoping (and working) for a better tomorrow.





Click Here (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1342677?uid=3739832&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101891321927) if you're really interested in what the Harvard Law Review had to say about the California case.

[broncofan]

.
.

Your legal training is fine -though it is clear you are not a personal injury attorney (plaintiff or defense). However, perhaps if you read the actual Restatement of Torts article you would under my point better. When plaintiff's tried products cases under the strict liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities/Products they were initially successful with litigation against the gun known as the Saturday Night Special. However, state legislatures have gutted the claim when the courts did not. The Design Defect claims are also ineffective because both of federal legislation and all state jurisdictions requiring that a Design Defect claim allege adefect in the gun that caused it tomalfunction.



Of course this is really just intellectual masturbation right? I've indicated previously and you say you acknowledge that Congress pretty much closed every door to suing gun manufacturers. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, covers both and state and federal court civil liability for almost all negligence and products liability claims.

Enough of jerking off.




P.S. And yes you kept referring to my name in your posts attacking my opinions and now you back away from it - fine. Can we simply leave that you do not like being challenged and enjoy argument (like most attorneys who find joy in the argument as opposed to finding solutions). I have offered a viable step going forward (perhaps not a complete solution if there is one). I am only offering support to my opinion - not ridicule or derision (though I am not above a small amount of sarcasm).

With that said - I think I will leave this discussion hoping (and working) for a better tomorrow.



Click Here (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1342677?uid=3739832&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101891321927) if you're really interested in what the Harvard Law Review had to say about the California case.
When did I refer to your name? I honestly don't remember. If I were backing away from it I wouldn't bring it up. Are you sure I didn't use your name for identification purposes?

The writers of the restatement as you say did require a product be "defective" in addition to unreasonably dangerous. They were concerned about products such as beer or guns being the subject of a suit just because they happen to be dangerous when used for their intended purpose. The PLCAA provides a similar protection and is a shield to liability. It must have been passed for a reason; the feeling being that eventually a Judge was going to be receptive to the right set of facts.

However, the writers of the restatement are restating the law as it was (if they do it correctly; many questions about third restatement). The law develops based on exigency and I think in the case of guns, the federal law was passed out of fear of what many Republicans call judicial activism. In fact the advent of strict liability was an act of judicial activism as not too long ago it was anathema to hold people liability for defective products when their conduct was non-negligent.

Also, the Navegar case I think is a bad example of the failure of products liability. There was a regulation in California that if I recall did something similar to the federal law. I am talking about the common law developing without the interference of state legislatures or Congress on behalf of gun manufacturers. Why should guns get special protection if as you say they should win these lawsuits based on tort law? I am not going to pull up Navegar, but I think you'll find that I'm right about there being a regulation and so it wasn't a matter of normal tort principles applying. It may be a liberal state, but these suits were not going to stop being filed and gun manufacturers like manufacturers of other products were going to have to defend themselves eventually. Even if successful most of the time, this imposes costs.

We cannot rely on private litigation to be the ONLY tool for regulation. But no reason it shouldn't be a tool for when people have immunity their incentives change.

[broncofan]

Goes with last post.

I found this quote about the Navegar decision, "The Court held that the California statute precluded any claim for negligence or strict liability against a gun manufacturer involving the risks versus the benefits of a firearm." Section 1714.4 of the California Civil Code which was passed to bar application of common law principles to gun manufacturers.

More immunity. Yes, passed in a liberal state, but why should such a law be passed only as a shield for manufacturers of guns? You make just about any other product, you are subject to the common law.

[broncofan]

Brickcitybrother,
since you said you're leaving the debate, I wanted to say that although I'm pretty sure you're wrong about me using your name excessively (I went back and looked) you made some very good arguments.

I did use a few unnecessary insults. You are certainly not braindead, which your last post clearly shows. In fact I agree with most of your policy prescriptions, even if I chose to focus on the statistics, which I don't think helped your argument as much as your subsequent posts. So, I'm sorry I insulted you.

If you have not studied the law, you did an excellent job assimilating a lot of legal information. My view is not really that lawsuits make everyone so much safer, but that in the absence of really good regulation from agencies whose expertise protects the public, there should be other avenues.

In fact, if An8150 is here he might be able to vouch for this position. I am in favor of stringent regulation, but you cannot have no regulation and no market accountability. It is a Libertarian argument (though I am not a Libertarian), that we give people choices to do what they want but when those choices impose costs on others we make them provide some form of compensation. In that way, if the other, more hands-on regulatory mechanisms are not available because they're deemed to provide too much of a threat to the public's liberties, then manufacturers know they have to exercise caution. Again, the changes are incremental, and the lawsuits have theoretical hurdles to overcome. I just don't believe we can continue without market regulation or agency regulation.

If I had to choose between the two, I would assume your recommendations (re registration etc) would be more effective. I don't think we have to choose and further, in the absence of what you recommend, let the deep pockets make profits but also try to act responsibly. The point is that even the potential of accountability provides a check on a company's ability to act with impunity and would rein in excesses; with immunity that cannot happen. As you say, there are already a number of theoretical challenges to successful suit as it is.