How do you deal with stalker?

[broncofan]

Firearms are also attributed to being used to some degree in acts of self defense an estimated 2 million times annually. .

I'd love to see some of the incidents included in that statistic. Guy shoots barista who put too much whipped cream on his frappucino. Guy shoots himself but he was his own worst enemy anyway.

[thombergeron]

Most people misinterpret the 2nd Amendment's wording. In the language of the day (1700's English), the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of the people to keep and bear arms of a common civilian equivalent to that of a military soldier for purposes of ensuring the security of liberty from tyrannical government. The "militia" has nothing to do with a National Guard or Army. The Army and National Guard are specified under separate sections of the Constitution. As far as I know, U.S. Marines don't receive anthrax-filled grenades as part of their standard load-out. However, a Marine has the M4 Carbine or M-16, the common civilian equivalent of which is the AR-15.

Sorry, one more point here. The federal courts disagree with you regarding the 2nd Amendment. That's why it is still illegal for civilians to own AR-15 rifles in many localities, including Washington DC and the state of California. You should read Antonin Scalia's opinion in the Heller case:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."

[kittyKaiti]

You seem to be working very hard to miss the point.

Two immature guys will always get into an argument, because that's what immature guys do. In Chandler, AZ, in 2014, where everyone, including these immature guys, is armed, then someone is likely to die or be severely injured when immature guys do what they're going to do.

In, say, Manchester, where they also have lots of immature guys who get into arguments, the same encounter would more likely result in a black eye, but nobody is dead or permanently disabled.

Gun nuts are fond of claiming that an armed society is a polite society. Not only does this anecdote illustrate the folly of such thinking, it makes clear that public weapon-carrying increases the lethality of these otherwise mundane encounters.

It's also a handy way of undermining this weird argument:



In most studies of defensive gun use, and definitely in Gary Kleck's and John Lott's work, both of these encounters would be coded as defensive gun uses (DGUs). And yet, no lives were saved. On the contrary, one person was killed and another hospitalized. It is likely that these DGUs were illegal.

So translating 60,000 (or whatever -- nobody really knows how many DGUs there are each year) self-defensive gun uses per year into "60,000 lives saved" is obviously an invalid and illogical conclusion.

You may have an ideological preference for widespread and unregulated gun ownership, but the data is not on your side.

This would not be considered a DGU. There is no such thing as a legal or illegal DGU. It is either murder or self defense. A DGU is an act of self defense. If it's not, it is simply a murder or assault with a deadly weapon. It was two men arguing and brawling resulting in one murdering the other. This was not a self defense incident, like if one man was walking through the store and the other proceeded to randomly batter him. Use of a firearm would be self defense if that was the case, however it wasn't. This was blatantly the criminal use of a firearm.

And by "lives saved", I'm not counting dead criminals as lost lives. They don't matter. Home invaders, murderers, rapists, kidnappers, gangbangers, and the like, are criminals. The "lives saved" are the innocent, law abiding people whose lives could have been lost as a result of not using something (eg: a firearm) to defend themselves from criminal violence.

By Manchester, I'm guessing the UK? Yea, two morons brawling can't shoot each other. But, innocent people can't defend themselves with weapons at all in the UK, be it a firearm, a knife, pepper spray, taser or anything else from violent criminals. With that said, you end up with armed criminals walking around doing as they please, unchecked, and cops who are also unarmed, having to wait for an armed cop to respond to deal with a violent maniac with a knife, like this dude:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/20...on_street.html

[kittyKaiti]

Sorry, one more point here. The federal courts disagree with you regarding the 2nd Amendment. That's why it is still illegal for civilians to own AR-15 rifles in many localities, including Washington DC and the state of California. You should read Antonin Scalia's opinion in the Heller case:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."

I honestly couldn't give a poo what some Supreme Court activist judge or a politician or the President says about guns and the law. I go by what the Constitution of the United States says. And the 2nd Amendment says: "shall not be infringed". Whether our elected officials obey that or not, whether they agree with it or not, the Constitution is the highest law of the land and preempts everything. Anything outside of what the Constitution says, that is contrary to it, is an illegal unconstitutional law.

[broncofan]

I honestly couldn't give a poo what some Supreme Court activist judge or a politician or the President says about guns and the law. I go by what the Constitution of the United States says. And the 2nd Amendment says: "shall not be infringed". Whether our elected officials obey that or not, whether they agree with it or not, the Constitution is the highest law of the land and preempts everything. Anything outside of what the Constitution says, that is contrary to it, is an illegal unconstitutional law.

I think it was our 4th Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall who said that it is the role of the Judiciary to decide whether laws are Constitutional. So it doesn't matter what you or Ron Paul or Wayne LaPierre think about the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. Only that the other branches of government are bound by the precedent they set.

[broncofan]

Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia