Anti-gunners - Keep this a secret

Rosevone Bird knows all to well about deadly force. Last week, a man pushed his way into his home and attacked his wife's caretaker. Bird responded with one shot from his 357 magnum. "I shot him." Despite protecting his family, Bird says he is not proud of what he did. "Hell no, I feel bad."

The shooting was ruled justifiable by the District Attorney's office.


SHHHHHHHHH, be very, very, quiet. We don't want anyone to know that guns are used for self defense in this country.

Let's all agree to just say Mr. Bird should have called the police and watched the attacker go after the caretaker, or he should have pretended to be asleep like HCI suggests when criminal enters your home

http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?s=1359934

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

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

most of the time it seems that gun owners get drunk and try to shoot their spouses or shoot themselves while cleaning their guns or each other while tying to shoot beer cans off each other's heads. Or go on the random wanton killing spree.

Well I guess even a blind pig finds an acorn now and again.

Some old man, 70 years old or so, been handling firearms all his life, including a stint in the armed forces...."accidentally" shoots himself while cleaning a firearm? No, everyone knows that you unload a weapon before cleaning it, and that still the four rules of gun safety still apply, and that there's no need to need to ever look down the business-end of the barrel.

I'd bet you anything that 99% of such "accidents" are suicides made to look like accidents in order to either save the family the shame, or to avoid forfeiting the life insurance payoff.

time in about a month that someone in Memphis defended their home and themselves by the use of a firearm.

.

which doesn't surprise me, seeing how some anti gunners practically masturbate with glee over stories where guns are used by criminals.

when people only get one side of the story, and that side is proclaimed as being backed up by "scientific studies" purporting to show what #3 hinted at, any evidence of an opposing view is seen as an "aberration."

Edited to add:
"most of the time it seems that gun owners get drunk and try to shoot their spouses or shoot themselves while cleaning their guns or each other while tying to shoot beer cans off each other's heads. Or go on the random wanton killing spree."

And does the incident in Memphis make up for the City Councilman who was shot here in New York? What a flipping useless side show. I see why people avoid this gibberish. I will in the future.

After this, I am not going to offer my views any more. Guns to me are just guns but to some they are so much more.

SCOTUS has consistently held that government is not obligated to defend any individual against criminals.

DoJ says "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon." Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft

In 2001, victims defended themselves in over 4 million crimes of violence. Only 6.8% said their efforts made the situation worst. Self-protective measures employed by victims

In the incident you cite, a criminal was killed but I wonder how many murders were thwarted by victims who chose to defend themself?

According to the tables less than 1% used a weapon to threaten their attackers.

Many times, the mere knowledge that a victim or potential victim has a gun is enough to make a criminal reconsider.

You're kidding right?

posted at the same time you correctly challenged my first reply.

Mea culpa :-(

QUOTE
On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property.
UNQUOTE

The per cent of victims that defended themselves with a gun is very small, perhaps 1% to 2% as you noted.

did not become victims:)

according to the BJS, there were 5.7 million crimes of violence in 2001.

Of the 4 million who "defended" themselves, there is no mention of just HOW they defended themselves. I suspect it was far less than the full four million who used guns in their defense.

A-Ha! And so it was... from one of the above links:

"*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes."

But note particularly that was an average of only 82,500 people a year who defended themselves with firearms of any sort. Using that 4 million number to imply they saved their asses by drawing guns is highly misleading. Tsk, tsk.

And, then there is another qualification:

"*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average between 1987
and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime
victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who
also had a firearm. (Because the NCVS collects victimization data
on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for
self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms.
Questionnaire revisions introduced in January 1993 will permit
separate consideration of police and civilian firearm cases.)"

Now, there are many more questions to be asked, and we haven't even gotten to the question of property crimes yet.

I am not arguing on one side or the other here, since I don't believe there is a definitive answer. Just pointing out that blindly throwing out numbers is highly misleading without context.

You know-- all that stuff about statistics and lies.

both sides of the RKBA issue to keep the voters confused.

Still, the right to defend one's self and property is an inalianable right. The best way to exercise that right is with the same arms used by law enforcement officers and criminals.

No citizen is required to defend themself or to use a gun if they choose to defend thenself. But every citizen should know that government is not obligated to defend an individual. Self Defense is a personal problem.

Guns are the most effective and efficient choice for self defense and handguns are the #1 choice.

"Still, the right to defend one's self and property is an inalianable right."

Sez you. Of course, sez a whole lot of other people (some of whom, although not everyone else around here, can even spell "inalienable" ... and know what it means).

The thing with these kinds of opinions is that there just ain't no authority for them.

All those ... I forget what you call them, we call them "Fathers of Confederation" ... they might well have shared your opinion, and in fact seemed to. Which might lead one to suspect that this is the reason for your own opinion, just like the reason for many people's belief in a god is that they were told it several gazillion times while they were growing up. One of those not quite independently arrived at beliefs that are nonetheless so important to the maintenance of an individual's personality ...

Anyhow, my bet is that someone who uses Che as his/her avatar might not agree with you. I might not agree with you.

Now, since a constitution is indeed authority for certain things, a statement in a constitution that "such-and-such is an inalienable right" might be adequate proof, for certain purposes anyhow (i.e. whether the state may interfere with the activities covered by the "right"), that such-and-such is indeed an inalienable right for those purposes.

We all understand, of course, that things like constitutions govern the relationship between individual and state, and not between individual and individual. So an individual's "right" to defend him/herself or his/her property against another individual's attempt to interfere with him/her or his/her property just isn't covered by what's in the constitution anyhow. (Although of course the manner in which the state may deal with people who do such things is covered.)

Of course, the damned thing is that, to my knowledge, your constitution doesn't actually say any such thing. It does say things like:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(that's Amendment V)

And that just isn't quite the same thing as "the right to defend one's self and property is an inalianable right".

So my humble suggestion would be that whenever someone says things like "the right to defend one's self and property is an inalianable right", s/he might be wise to add, at the end, "IMHO".

And then of course we'd all have to recognize that the statement in question is not authority for much of anything, unless it can be demonstrated to be something other than a personal opinion. I mean, I could say "property is theft" and proceed to base an entire public policy proposal on that statement, and what would *you* think? I'm pretty sure you'd be saying something along the lines of "sez you". And if I couldn't somehow demonstrate that there was at least a consensus in the relevant society that property is theft, perhaps as expressed or implied in a constitution, which might then make it a proper basis for public policy, you'd be pretty right.

.

77 people died from either a homicide or suicide using a gun. An isolated example does not make a good argument.

and since I have the *exact* numbers in front of me i'll quote them:

28093 people were killed in 1998 as a result a suicide with a gun or a homicide with a gun.

11289 were homicides
16804 were suicides

there were an additional 1327 which were either accidental or unspecified. We'll assume that ALL 1327 were actually criminals who were shot and killed in self-defense (which we KNOW is untrue) and we'll assume that all of the suicides would have been committed without a gun if a gun wasn't available (which we also KNOW is untrue as most suicides are spur of the moment). This means that for every 1 person killed by a gun used in self-defense there are 8.5 people killed in a homicide with a gun. (the 8.5 does not include any suicides).

Before using an isolated example it's probably a good idea to see if that example is a representative example. Yours is not. A better example here is one where a crime is foiled because of a gun where no one is actually killed. I'm sure there are a few of these...are the 30,000 of them? I doubt it and I also doubt that many of those crimes which were averted would have resulted in violence if the crime had been committed, but I'd love to see the statistics. I'm mostly ambivalent about guns though I am for gun control in three places. I believe in background checks without the gun-show loophole. I also believe that there should be federal regulation in gun manufacture (which would eliminate a lot of accidental deaths...saturday night specials are total garbage and shouldn't be placed into the hands of someone who thinks it can be used in self-defense...they are more like ly to have the damn thing blow up than actually discharge properly), and finally I support the assault weapons ban. Beyond that, I'm open for an intelligent discussion backed up by a reational argument. I freely admit that I lean towards much stricter gun control, particulary in the area of requirements for licensing, training and safety measures required by the government.

Edit
My post was made after jody posted some interesting number which I intend to take a look at. thanks for the info jody. Again, i am pretty ambivalent about guns but I don't think anyone who was rational on the subject would argue that some form of regulation of guns is a bad idea. The paranoia of the NRA is that guns will be taken away. The age old argument that once you start down a slippery slope. This argument is often valid, however as long as you maintain vigilence it does not have to be the case. I firmly believe that many if not most accidents, suicides and many gun-related murders can be avoided through some form of gun control, though I don't pretend to be an expert and I try to keep an open mind on a subject that many feel passionately about.

there is one flaw in your argument.

Self defense use of a firearm that results in death of the assailent is a 'homocide', not one of the 'accident or unspecified's.

Where do you think the term 'justifiable homocide' comes from?

Or at least the way you stated it they dont.

You put the SDU of firearms into the 'accident and other' category, when they are actually part of the 'homocide' category.

In other words the 11k deaths INCLUDE the justifiables.

I repeat self-defense uses of firearms result in death is NOT categorized within the 'accident or non-specified' grouping. Which is what you appear to be doing.

here is a quote:

there were an additional 1327 which were either accidental or unspecified. We'll assume that ALL 1327 were actually criminals who were shot and killed in self-defense

What I am saying (and I am simply repeating myself for clarity here) is that saying that those 'criminals who were shot and killed in self-defense' is part of the '1327 accidental or unspecified' is incorrect. That in acuality self defense usage is included in the 'homocide' figure.

I dunno ... but I've always figured (having seen that term not infrequently) that it must be some nasty fundie religionist notion about how it's the deity thinks that killing gay men is justified.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about where the expression "justifiable homIcide" came from, of course ...

.

After typing up a response explaining exactly what 'justifiable homocide' is, I decided...

...naa, Im not even going to bother to respond to such blatant and assinine trolling.

have a nice day :hi:

Allow me to try to point it out again:

"After typing up a response explaining exactly what 'justifiable homocide' is, ..."

Maybe you'd do it, as a special favour to me.

But let me try again:

I can only guess what "justifiable *HOMO*cide" is. Well, I can also fall over guffawing, and thank you for that laugh of the day. (Well, except that the actual idea isn't at all funny ...)

I know perfectly well what "justifiable *HOMI*cide" is.

See?

.

?

central link is a perfect starting place for crime stats. DoJ Firearms and Crime Statistics

Current Federal Laws pertaining to guns are at

By gun-control, do you mean under current law:
1. more arrests
2. more prosecutions
3. longer sentences
OR MORE LAWS
4. ban handguns
5. ban long guns
6. What?

A good source of data is WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports

Tighter restrictions on hand gun sales (longer waiting periods, background checks, end of the gun-show loophole), regulation of gun manufacturers (saturday night specials created only with quality control...these guns are more like hand-grenades...a gun should be required to function as specified rather than just being made as cheaply as possible), regulation of gun sellers, the fact is that gun dealers are selling guns illegally, no, not all, not a majority, most likely a small minority, but if they continue to bypass the checks and requirements, people will die. I support the ban no assault weapons, i can see no justification for any private owner to have one. I also feel that licensing of guns should be approached like licensing to drive though slightly stricter, require a safety course, with a written exam, also require that all guns be sold with trigger locks. Additionally, all guns should be test fired prior to ship, and the barrel markings recorded and associated with the serial number of the gun.

I don't feel these things are overly restrictive, hell I dont even agree with disallowing ex-felons from having guns as long as they are properly registered. I understand the worry about "erosion" of something some people feel is a constitutional right (though I tend to side with the militia interpretation), however, how are any of the above other than the assault weapon ban restrictive of a legitimate gun-owner's rights? I can see gun proponents having an issue with a ban, but even the most ardent gun proponent would agree a line has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise your neighbor might have a functional tank, or a howitzer, or a (to the absurd extreme) nuclear tipped missile. I think drawing the line at assault weapons is reasonable.

In an ideal world guns would be banned, this is not an ideal world, people have an interest in instruments whose only usage is to cause harm, but that is their opinion and I wouldn't impose my will on them if they don't cause harm to another person any more than I would tell a homosexual they can't get married or a woman that she can't have an abortion. (I hesistate to use either example there because frankly I personally think guns are repugnant things and amongst the most vile things human beings have ever come up with, whilst i see absolutely nothing immoral about homosexuality or abortion).

propaganda.

Perhaps you went to the link I provided for federal gun laws and studied it. Federal laws already prevent felons and other types of people from owning firearms.

As to waiting periods, today law enforcement can do a background check in a few minutes. Do you have any proof that longer waiting periods will reduce crime? If not, then you are just penalizing law abiding citizens.

You say "In an ideal world guns would be banned". My response is that in "my ideal world, crime would not exist and citizens can own as many guns as they wish to enjoy competition, hunting, and plinking."

As long as the government is not required to protect me, then I object very strongly when someone tells me I cannot defend myself with the same arms used by law enforcement and criminals. Those who would take away my right to defend myself are taking away an inalienable right.

The only thing in this thread I'm going to comment on is this:

saturday night specials created only with quality control...these guns are more like hand-grenades...a gun should be required to function as specified rather than just being made as cheaply as possible

Please provide a definition of a "Saturday Night Special" and some sort of statistical or anecdotal evidence which concerns their poor quality control and tendency to explode in people's hands.

Just as an example of how hollow the pro-control propaganda really is. See what you can find there.

Saturday night specials refer to cheaply made snub nosed revolvers. Have personal experience with misfires of these weapons. Go out and buy one. No serious gun enthusiast would claim that all of these weapons are well made. We can regulate the manufacture of infant car seats but not the manufacture of guns? Doesn't make much sense to me. perhaps grenade was too strong a term, but there is no excuse for shoddy workmanship particularly when the product in question is a dangerous weapon.

"In an ideal world guns would be banned"

Your entire attempt to define your idea of gun control was useless because further down in your post you state that "In an ideal world guns would be banned" that is truly what your idea of gun control is and to say otherwise is not being fully honest.

Now lets look at the items you tried to pass off as being your genuine idea of gun control:

Tighter restrictions on hand gun sales (longer waiting periods, background checks, end of the gun-show loophole)

Why waiting periods? What is it that you want to gain from them? There are already background checks done on sales that go through dealers. The gunshow loophole really means private sales, if your concern is that there are people acting like dealers at shows and selling large amounts of firearms in person to person transactions at shows in states that allow those then you should be aware that the BATF(E) already has in existing law all it needs to arrest and jail someone acting as a dealer without a license.

saturday night specials created only with quality control...these guns are more like hand-grenades...

Are you trying to imply that there are firearms that are exploding all over the place? California devised their own testing protocols and made it law that no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice.

As far as I know many manufacturers of what HCI/VPC and others like them would like to label as Saturday Night Specials or their newest term junk guns all passed these tests.

regulation of gun sellers, the fact is that gun dealers are selling guns illegally, no, not all, not a majority, most likely a small minority, but if they continue to bypass the checks and requirements

There is regulation of dealers and plenty of regulations to comply with. Jesus what cave do you live in? ?

I support the ban no assault weapons, i can see no justification for any private owner to have one

You support a ban on EVERY gun!
Later on in your post you say that in your perfect world all firearms would be banned, obviously you are picking these out as your first target (no pun intended) since you want no one to have guns.

For your justification requirement I take it that you aren't aware that every year in Ohio there is a huge rifle match where if a competitor wants to have any chance of winning has to use an AR15 (which you would label an assault weapon), the only other options are the M1 Garand a WW2 and Korean war era battle rifle or the M1A a Vietnam war era battle rifle. In your world legitimate competition where winners are congratulated by the President of the United States are justification enough.


I also feel that licensing of guns
Nice way to backdoor in your registration scheme so that when you get the ban you want later on all of the guns can be collected.

Additionally, all guns should be test fired prior to ship, and the barrel markings recorded and associated with the serial number of the gun

I'd like to point you in the direction of the study that the California Department of Justice did on ballistic fingerprinting such as you propose. You'll find that the study was not favorable of it at all. This opinion was verified by an independent review. You should also note that Maryland and New York both have in place a system such as that investigated in California's study and to date not one single crime has been solved by their use.

:toast:

Look, I provided a perfectly reasonable caveat. I do not support a ban on guns because I don't think it is feasible nor do I think it will ever be feasible. In a perfect world, no one would lie on their tax return, no one would be murdered and Pauly Shore wouldn't exist. I live in an imperfect world and I accept that. So get over this bullshit argument that proponents of reasonable gun control are trying to take away your rights. Fer crissakes I enjoy shooting as much as the next guy (though I do not, nor will I ever own a gun, that's my personal preference).

I don't pretend to have the answers to these questions but all I can do is throw out ideas, you have every right to argue against them which you do on some points (and I'm reasonable enough to go out and look into the things you point to, but I'm also reasonable enough to realize that there is propaganda on both sides, all one can do is examine both sides and then make an informed judgement). Unfortunately you decide to jump down my throat over a comment about a perfect world and use that to refute reasonable proposals. Totally ridiculous.

So now you go back into your little paranoid world where I'm attempting to take away your favorite toy and cry about your rights, and I'll go back to my world where I advocate reasonable regulation of something that is by definition dangerous.

why some individuals think anyone who wants more gun control would want the news of this tragedy to be covered up...

Hell, I think more Americans should be aware of the tragedies gun cause...and I wouldn't mind if every American saw how certain unbalanced neurotics gloat whenever they think they can justify one of thosee tragedies in any way...

There's no better advertisement for gun control than the actual statements of the RKBA crowd, and the underhanded actions of the gun industry itself.

I'm sorry but your caveat (an explanation to prevent misinterpretation) didn't do what it seems you intended it to do. Instead it rang out loud and clear as the true message of your post.

I do not support a ban on guns because I don't think it is feasible nor do I think it will ever be feasible.

If that is the only reason you do not support a ban on guns then your posts are ridiculous, you're using political expediency to argue for the most extreme gun controls that you think can get passed. That's incrementalism AKA the slippery slope that some gun control advocates say does not exist.

So get over this bullshit argument that proponents of reasonable gun control are trying to take away your rights.

The problem is that from your very own statements it's clear that you are only proposing gun control ideas because your perfect world ideal of having all guns banned isn't feasible. Do you want me to believe that if you thought it was a realistic goal to get all guns banned that you wouldn't strive for that goal?

While I might have been a bit harsh in some parts of my response I did clearly respect your opinion enough to take the time to spell out my disagreement and offer information from my point of view rather than just dismiss it as BS as other forum participants might have done.

I'll go back to my world where I advocate reasonable regulationbut only because you don't think you can get them all banned. This is one reason it's difficult for a PRO-RKBA person to trust that some gun-control advocates actually mean what they say.

"While I might have been a bit harsh in some parts of my response I did clearly respect your opinion enough to take the time to spell out my disagreement and offer information from my point of view rather than just dismiss it as BS as other forum participants might have done."

Flat out lying about what someone else's position on an issue is is "respect". Whew, dogie.

"I do not support a ban on guns because I don't think it is feasible nor do I think it will ever be feasible."

"If that is the only reason you do not support a ban on guns ..."

Hmm. You just don't WANT to understand (or let on that you do), do you?

It is not FEASIBLE (let's say, in Canada) to, oh, ban the wearing of pink clothing by law. Why is it not feasible? Well, yes, such a law would be kinda unenforceable. But you know something else? It would be CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE to do that. And it would therefore not be FEASIBLE, even if I wanted to do it, which I don't.

Would **I** want all firearms to be banned, if I were queen for a day?

Nope. For one thing, I recognize the ancestral rights of the First Nations people to hunt, trap and fish, and I recognize that those rights are legitimately exercised by using firearms, and that I would have no defensible argument for interfering in the exercise of their rights by banning them from possessing firearms.

I also recognize that there are other legitimate interests that are protected, and rights that are exercised, through the use of firearms. Hunting is not illegal or universally condemned, and my society simply cannot prohibit anyone from engaging in hunting. No justification, you see, for prohibiting hunting. Now, there might be justification for placing conditions and restrictions on the possession of firearms for hunting, but that is not banning them.

My ideal world might well be one in which no one possesses firearms, and no one wears pink clothing. That world will NOT come about by banning the possession of firearms and the wearing of pink clothing as long as there are substantial numbers of people who wish to do both and/or the rest of us cannot justify a ban. It will only come about, if ever, when people decide to give up firearms and pink.

Some things we CAN justify banning. Speeding in school zones, possessing homemade nuclear weapons, the list just goes on and on. Some things we can't -- in which case such a ban IS NOT FEASIBLE.

Instead of persisting in misrepresenting what your interlocutor is saying --

"I'll go back to my world where I advocate reasonable regulation but only because you don't think you can get them all banned."

... have you ever considered ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION OF SOMETHING if you GENUINELY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, or even if you think it means something you find offensive?

And in closing:

"This is one reason it's difficult for a PRO-RKBA person to trust that some gun-control advocates actually mean what they say."

Oh look. Another FALSE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION that someone is lying. You apparently never quit, and have little if anything else to contribute to the discussion.

"Debate-- you speak, BullDozer twists whatever you say into something you did not say and there is no reason to believe you would say ..."

.

Quote the alleged lie.

"I do not support a ban on guns because I don't think it is feasible nor do I think it will ever be feasible."

Let me help you here; I do not support a ban because I don't think it's feasible (capable of being done or carried out) nor do I think it will ever be feasible (capable of being done or carried out). It wasn't said that a ban is not supported because it's not the right thing to do, instead it was said that I don't support a ban because it's not workable.

Does that make it clearer for you?

"If that is the only reason you do not support a ban on guns ..."

Hmm. You just don't WANT to understand (or let on that you do), do you?

That a ban is not feasible was indeed the only reason given that a total ban is not suppported, a ban on "assault weapons" is supported by that poster.

It would be CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE to do that. And it would therefore not be FEASIBLE, even if I wanted to do it, which I don't

Ah but you see there are those that make the false allegation that the Second Amendment, which is the one that would hold a firearms ban as being unconstitutional, is not an individual right but a collective one and as such a ban would pass constitutional scrutiny. They are of course wrong but that doesn't stop them from making the claim.


Why did you bother to mix up ban and possession later in your post? Something can certainly be banned, it's just a twitch of the legislative pens and *poof* they are banned. That doesn't make them disappear however, that is an entire different matter altogether.

Some things we CAN justify banning. Speeding in school zones, possessing homemade nuclear weapons, the list just goes on and on. Some things we can't -- in which case such a ban IS NOT FEASIBLE.

The banning of certain drugs was justified and, but has it been a feasible ban? Feasible and justify are not synonyms nor are they dependant on each other.

Instead of persisting in misrepresenting what your interlocutor is saying --

There was no misrepresentation of the initial statement In an ideal world guns would be banned, this is not an ideal world... After all we do work to make the world an ideal place to we not?

Exercise comprehension please.

Debate- where Iverglas writes a full page that says nothing of substance.

Nationwide there undoubtedly hundreds or maybe even thousands (some say 20,000, but who really knows) of gun control laws.

Are there any that you would consider to be unreasonable?

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

I don't remember where I saw this, but it is an answer to the argument that we should treat guns like cars, complete with licensing and registration.

BTW, I appreciate the generally civil and respectful tone in this debate over firearms. I've been a lurker for quite a while, and it wasn't always like this.

----------
"As a gun owner, I must admit that it is tempting to embrace the argument that we should regulate guns like cars, as it would result in the greatest decontrol of firearms in America since 1868, when the 14th Amendment abolished the Southern states' Black Codes, which prevented freedmen from owning firearms.

"As it is now, I may walk into a dealership and purchase just about any vehicle that I can afford - be it a cheap junk car, a military-style Hummer, or an evil low-rider car 'of the kind commonly used by criminals' - without undergoing an FBI Instacheck. I may put the same kind of gas in my tank that the police put in theirs. I may install a muffler or automatic transmission without paying an onerous tax, getting a special permit from the Treasury Department, or undergoing an intrusive federal background check. I may install running lights, a gun rack, and other purely cosmetic features in my pickup truck without having to fear that I am inadvertently creating an illegal 'assault vehicle.' I may peacefully drive my vehicle onto school property to drop off my children without committing a felony. Neither a license nor registration is even required if I operate my vehicle solely on private property, and if by chance I did operate an unregistered vehicle in order to protect myself and my family, at the most I would be merely fined and ordered to register the vehicle. I certainly would not be sent to Rikers Island and branded a criminal for the rest of my life.

"If we treated guns like cars, then licenses would be issued according to objective criteria (shall-issue) and not according to the whimsy and political imperatives of the chief of police (may-issue). As things stand now, the average New Yorker has about as much chance of getting a carry license as he does wrangling an invitation to a Condé Nast Oscar night party.

"Best of all, if we treated guns like cars, then my concealed carry license would be valid in all fifty states.

"New York city has adopted licensing and registration. Nonetheless each day sees 74 reported robberies in the Big Apple, and yet there's still enough jail space to incarcerate Ronald Dixon, a Navy veteran working two jobs whose criem was to defend his home and family with an 'unregistered' firearm.

"And as far as registration goes, can anyone explain to me how we would get criminals to register their weapons? In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Haynes that a convicted felon can not be convicted for failing to register a gun, because it is illegal under Federal law for a felon even to possess a firearm. Obliging him to register his firearm would mean requiring him to incriminate himself, and that is specifically barred by the Fifth Amendment.

"As a crime-prevention or crime-solving strategy, registration of firearms is a bust. It makes sense only as a precursor to gun confiscation. As a card-carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU, I would oppose this infringement, and would no more register the guns in my safe than the books in my library."

People in Germany can own guns but it is a process that takes about a year. Since it is hard to get guns in Germany people who want to commit suicide have a habit of driving the wrongway on the autobahn at night and taking other people with them. If I remember correctly the nickname for these people is ghostriders. I don't want to sound harsh I would much rather someone shoot themselfs in the privacy of their own homes then taking me or someone else with them.

A well trained rottweiler would serve just as well.

Defend your right to keep big dogs!

you have to put all of that money into food, vet bills, and so forth.

Plus rotts don't tear up old refrigerators, microwave and cans like a 9mm or .44 will :)

like a 9mm or .44 will."

I have all three. :)

And you would be surprised at just what a Rottie can tear up! :)

- Guns don't eat
- Guns don't bark
- Guns don't bite your neighbors' kids
- Guns don't chase cars
- Guns don't attack postal workers
- Guns don't get fleas
- Guns don't get smelly when they need their anal glands expressed. (No anal glands, no smell.)
- Guns don't need to be walked
- Guns don't shit
- No vet bills, and of course
- Guns don't die and break your heart

I'm not knocking dogs. I like dogs and support the right to keep big 'uns!

Nothing but furious spewing of straw men, imaginations of other peoples' opinions and the cowardly, weasely group attack namecalling typical to "pro-RKBA" posters... then more namecalling and whining about somebody getting quite naturally and reasonably "upset" about the moronic shit flinging. :eyes:

and making you read it.

See, I can read minds too.

of those who are infiltrating DU ....

These are not liberal democrats: ....

....we can find stories with a totally different outcome, such as the "law-abiding" homeowner using his gun to kill his wife AND her caretaker.

Anecdotal evidence at best......

The home owner is miserable because he had to shoot somebody...

The person he had to shoot was armed by the corrupt gun industry, currently fighting tooth and nail to continue to arm these sorts of people without facing the civil liability for doing so...if it were not so damn easy for scum to get guns, the homeowner might not have had to shoot anyone.

Now why are sane people supposed to be hiding this tragedy? Because lunatics are gloating over it publicly?

Frankly, I think the comments by the gun nuts here are the BEST argument FOR gun control anyone could find. What sane person could think bloodthirsty specimens out of touch with reality ought to be sold dangerous weapons?

Can you prove any of the statements you made?

Which one would you like me to prove? The FIRST paragraph of the FIRST post in this thread ends "Despite protecting his family, Bird says he is not proud of what he did. "Hell no, I feel bad.""

prove the following:
The person he had to shoot was armed by the corrupt gun industry

Can you prove that a manufacturer or or licensed dealer sold the intruder the weapon?

What sane person could think bloodthirsty specimens out of touch with reality ought to be sold dangerous weapons?

Show in this thread where any post has advocated selling firearms to violent criminals?

"Despite protecting his family, Bird says he is not proud of what he did. "Hell no, I feel bad."

I will not dispute this statement, but will make one observation, IMHO He would be a lot more upset if the caretaker or his wife were killed and he had not acted

"What sane person could think bloodthirsty specimens out of touch with reality ought to be sold dangerous weapons?
Show in this thread where any post has advocated selling firearms to violent criminals?"

Try reading that again...

The person he had to shoot was armed by the corrupt gun industry, currently fighting tooth and nail to continue to arm these sorts of people
Explain that, how are they corrupt?
How are they trying to to arm crimminals?

without facing the civil liability for doing so

Explain why they should be liable

if it were not so damn easy for scum to get guns, the homeowner might not have had to shoot anyone

How is it easy, where do they get them?

Be sure and include a whole bunch of hooey about how there is no gun show loophole, that the gun industry doesn't spend millions each year keeping it wedged open, how the bill to protect the gun industry from liability doesn't really protect them from liability, that the Tiahrt amendment doesn't really shield dishonest gun dealers, yadda yadda yadda.....

By now, who hasn't heard right wingers try to peddle those lies?

What exactly is the "gunshow loophole"

I need reading comprehension lessons so use clear and concise words in your explaination of the "gunshow loophole" is.

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

"All licensed dealers must do the background check, whether they're selling at a gun show or through a store front."
But a large number of the sellers at every gun show are NOT liocensed dealers...and you damn well know it.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from –
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

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


Notice gun show sales are fewer than 2%

Oooohh the Gun show loophole is how criminals get guns.... Just another bunch of misleading hoowy!

I don't know anyone who is.

We ask ourselves the same question with regards to the Repuke rags.
Be tolerant, there are people who believe anything thats stirs something other than their mind regardless of their political convictions.

despite the hysterical ranting of gun nuts.

With the amount of rote, canned phrases that you regurgitate so frequently here, it's looking more likely with each post that you're some bizarre, ill-programmed response-bot.

when it comes to the dishonest crap peddled by gun nuts.

Same old, tired responses. Same old predictable rhetoric and absolute shunning of reason or logic.

Hey, don't go changing...

and get the same old tired responses.

"Same old predictable rhetoric and absolute shunning of reason or logic."
You called it....it's stock in trade for the RKBA crowd.

"Instant Checks at Gun Shows
• For the first 3 years after enactment, McCain-Lieberman allows for a full 3 business days to complete the background check at gun shows.
• After 3 years, states may reduce the time period for background checks between buyers and private sellers at gun shows to 24 hours, once the Department of Justice has certified that no less than 95% of a state's records are sufficiently automated to prevent prohibited buyers from purchasing guns."

So this would automatically start a 3 day waiting period for the first three years, then a 24 hour waiting period from then on. How does this equate to an "Instant Check"?

Why not use the current NICS for an instant check??

Frankly, I don't care...I think waiting periods SHOULD be reinstated because the NICS is ineffectual without a comprehensive national database...which the NRA is blocking.

I wrote over two months ago and that stupid repub has never answered me back!

your explanation of those statements.
If your are unable to answer it is you that is spewing yadda yadda yadda.
Please just answer the questions.
Yyou never know, you might get something right and change my way of thinking.

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

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

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

your explanation of those statements.
If your are unable to answer it is you that is spewing yadda yadda yadda.
Please just answer the questions.
Yyou never know, you might get something right and change my way of thinking.

your explanation of those statements.
If your are unable to answer it is you that is spewing yadda yadda yadda.
Please just answer the questions.
Yyou never know, you might get something right and change my way of thinking.

your explanation of those statements.
If your are unable to answer it is you that is spewing yadda yadda yadda.
Please just answer the questions.
Yyou never know, you might get something right and change my way of thinking.

:puke:
How is the gun industry corrupt?
Why should they be held accountable for the product they produce?
Come on, give us something viable if you can.
Give me a few minutes to gather up some stuff and I'll show you the truth.

"Wah! Guns not bad! Mean old man say bad things about guns!"

"Give me a few minutes to gather up some stuff and I'll show you the truth."
Spare us the NRA propaganda...

I will not use anything from the NRA

Why are sane people supposed to be hiding this tragedy? Because neurotics with gun fetishes are gloating over it publicly?

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

:hi:

how are ya ? .....

NICE weather .... eh ?

and realize this will be the last time I ever explain myself to the likes of a pompous paranoid twit such as yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=80156

The many posters who come here now, with very low post counts, who spout their right wing CRAP should be an indication to us that there is a concerted effort to take over this board

No, I haven't been here long, but many many people have welcomed me to this site, with full knowledge of my stance on gun ownership. Until now I have felt like I had found my niche place to exchange views, and learn a few things. Maybe I'm wrong

There is NOTHING liberal OR progressive aboput the views being espoused by these 2nd Amendment extremists

I'm so sorry that I'm not "liberal" enough to share bandwith with you and your 1000+ posts. ALL HAIL Trajan - almighty protector of liberal ideology.

I also believe in the 1st amendment, does that too make me an extreemist?
How about the third, fourth, fifth and so on, so I guess I'm just an extremist all around.

I thought DU is a place were people share many similar ideas and opinions, not a place where everyone GOOSE STEPS!

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

The ultra-right-wing rubbish that's posted in here daily by the gun nut crowd is un-frigging-believable.

I own two custom pistols for competition and two rifles for hunting, am I considered a gun nut? The party supports guns for hunters and sportsman. Just trying to figure if I fit in or not.

Do you pretend Linda Chavez and Orrin Hatch make sense? Are you going to claim that Ted Nugent isn't a racist idiot?

it depends on what I think. Dont recall ever bothering to listen to what those three have to say.

I own one pistol and one rifle in a state where that is no big deal. I have a license to carry concealed, and fortunately have never had to use it or fire it in anger. They're not for hunting, but self-defense.

And I don't like being lumped in with the likes of Chavez, Hatch, O'Reilly, Coulter, Scalia, etc.

Clearly the right wing is stockpiling arms, and obviously they spout their hatred at us night and day on their TV and talk radio stations.

Bush and his crew seem hell-bent on repealing constitutional protections piecemeal in the name of fighting drugs, terrorism, etc.

At the stroke of a pen, John Ashcroft can declare any of us to be "enemy combatants," and therefore suspend our rights to due process, counsel, habeas corpus, etc.

Fellow liberals, you need to learn how to shoot.

No thank you.........

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

...when they filled out their NRA membership application.

A bellyful of hate, a headful of lies and nonsense, and inadequate, er, equipment....

was an avid shooter.

shooting up doesn't count...

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holmes

"Better Red than Dead" or in its current form "Better AWOL's Slave than Dead".

Surely there must be something you value enough to take up arms and defend and risk losing your life in defending it or them. Your family, your country?

...CO didn't respond to your comment.

Self defense aside.
America is a nation of laws;
and the law requires the survivors of any shooting to find the nearest policeman and submit to custody
and to cooperate with the investigation.

Following the above, has kept me out of jail for over 30 years.
Despite fighting for my life a few times.
And kept me free from charges despite several grand jury (led by the nose, by prosecutors) convocations.

Law abiding!

More law abiding than cops!
(as are most citizens IMHO)
In my situations:

Nobody has had to cover up my actions with any 'blue wall of silence'.
I've always obeyed the law, at all times.

Fighting for my life, has never meant breaking the law.

Being a live; witness for the prosecution,
is always better than: deceased victim.

Being a live defendant is also better than being a deceased victim.

First, we have that "justifiable HOMOcide" thing.

And now we have you TURNING YOURSELF INTO A COP.

Does this require magic potions, or just heel-clicking? Do you do it in a phone booth, perhaps? Is the change noticeable to the general public?

heh
heh
heh


.

"America is a nation of laws; and the law requires the survivors of any shooting to find the nearest policeman and submit to custody and to cooperate with the investigation."

Can you cite that law (those laws?) please?

I'm damned if I can figure out why the "survivors of any shooting" would be required to submit to custody ... just for starters.

why anyone thinks that someone horrified by the tragedy that guns create in this country would want to keep this particular incident a secret...or why it caused so much gloating among the RKBA loonies.

As far as I know, nobody has ever said that handguns can never be used to successfully defend yourself against attack. That would be a bizarre thing to say.

The point that "anti" gun people (or people who'd like a bit more control around guns) make, is that guns are ALSO used for a great many less laudable activities, including suicides, murders and accidental shootings.

Of course a gun can sometimes be used to defend yourself - so can a flamethrower. The question regarding guns is whether they are a suitable and appropriate item to have readily available in the public domain without proper training, registration and laws governing how they're stored.

Something funny is that flame throwers are actually unregulated, You can build one and play around with it till your heart is content, They're just a little bulky for self-defense ;)

property". SCOTUS has ruled that government is not obligated to defend an individual.

Neither criminals nor law enforcement officers have an inalienable right to bear arms as a condition of their status, note a law enforcement officer’s right to bear arms is granted by government. Handguns are the tools of choice for criminals and law enforcement officers.

Because citizens as potential victims have the inalienable right to oppose crime, why should they be banned from using the same tools used by those who commit crime and those who try to solve crimes?

"In the U.S., citizens have the "inalienable right to defend self and property"

First: what do you think this means? I am by no means persuaded that you actually know what it means, so your explanation of your understanding of it will help me out here.

Second: can you cite a source for this right and your formulation of it? I'm sure you can, I'd just like to see it.

Third: since you also have an inalienable right to liberty, does this mean that the state may not lock you up when you commit crimes ... or enact laws that prohibit you from jaywalking in the nude?

Your answers will be appreciated.

.

(html edited)

Seriously....I didn't say "ban guns", all I did was agree that guns can be used in self defence, but that doesn't necessarily entail that they should be available to the general public without strong restrictions.

Just because you can defend yourself with a gun and you have the right to defend yourself, that doesn't mean that you have the right to defend yourself with a gun.

The logic doesn't follow.

I was replying to the initial post which seemed to imply that anti-gun people denied that you could defend yourself with a handgun, which I don't think anyone has ever said.

P.

that you could defend yourself with a handgun".

Do you mean "could" in the sense of being able to physically or "could" in the sense of a citizen having the right to keep and carry a handgun?

If you meant the latter, then we have a number of groups in the US who are hell-bent on banning all handguns. Among those are the Violence Policy Center and a list of handgun-grabbers at Handgun-Free America.

All that in spite of the fact that each citizen has the inalienable right to defend self and property and a handgun is the most effective and efficient tool for that job. That's why handguns are the tool of choice among criminals and police officers.

"... each citizen has the inalienable right to defend self and property ..."

She keeps sayin' it and sayin' it and sayin' it.

What she doesn't want to say is:

- what authority does she have for sayin' it?

- what does it mean?

Two really straightforward questions I'd like to have an answer to -- in the first case, a question of fact that should be easy to answer; in the second case, a request for jody's thoughts (with, of course, any authoritative thoughts that she can muster in support of hers) that it should be easy for her to respond to.

I'm just looking to be enlightened.

Just don't know what her problem with that might be.

.

...but everybody has a right to life. Thus, everybody has a right to defend that life.

Pennsylvania Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776
QUOTE
I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
UNQUOTE

Vermont Constitution, 8 July 1777
QUOTE
I. THAT all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
UNQUOTE

Massachusetts Constitution, 15 June 1780
QUOTE
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
UNQUOTE

Inalienable rights can not be given away, therefore the citizens of those states and others could not have given up their right to defend self and property when they joined the United States: Pennsylvania on 12 December 1787, Massachusetts on 6 February 1788, and Vermont on 4 March 1791.

It is interesting that California, the home of so many gun-haters says:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
UNQUOTE