Gun Control 3

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Oh fine. Eric & lj - you have several definitional issues that are limiting your data set. Like the definition of homicide. The inclusion of "stranger" as a limiting variable. There are something like nearly 3.7 million burglaries a year in the US. In over a quarter of them, the residents are home. In seven percent of them, residents were violently victimized (that's 259,000 people a year).

There were 2.2 million in 2011, actually. And those, 92 resulted in homicide. Regardless of whether the number of murders by strangers is 21 or 57, compared to other circumstances of murder, a stranger breaking in and killing you causes a disproportionate amount of attention and fear.

Criminal homicide—a.) Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter: the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another. Deaths caused by negligence, attempts to kill, assaults to kill, suicides, and accidental deaths are excluded. The program classifies justifiable homicides separately and limits the definition to: (1) the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty; or (2) the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

b.) Manslaughter by negligence: the killing of another person through gross negligence. Deaths of persons due to their own negligence, accidental deaths not resulting from gross negligence, and traffic fatalities are not included in the category Manslaughter by Negligence.

12,664 Murders in 2011.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

Saying there is a specified manner to remove a Constitutional amendment doesn't mean they are "sacred". They aren't. But the prospect of a Government that is unfettered by any limits to its power scares the shit out of me. That it would have the authority to wield such unlimited power in as arbitrary a fashion as it sees fit makes my blood run cold.

I also never claimed such magazine capacity limitations are a "solution" to the problem. You asked me what specific "reasonable regulations" I could live with and that was an example of what I think constitutes a "reasonable restriction".

[Aemon Stark]

3 in the last 18 years. Thanks for proving my point. How many have we had this year? The past 6 months?

And one of those Japanese examples was a case of domestic terrorism. How many events like the Oklahoma City bombing have occurred in Japan over the last 30 years?

Drug cartels already have enough money to quickly set up gun factories for mass production.

They just need the government to ban them so they can really start making big time money

Right. I'm not sure why restricting or banning private ownership of firearms amounts to creating incentives for illegal production of firearms. It's not as if organized crime manufactures hydromorphone or oxycodone simply because they are restricted drugs only legally available by prescription. They are still manufactured legally.

[maize]

Right. I'm not sure why restricting or banning private ownership of firearms amounts to creating incentives for illegal production of firearms. It's not as if organized crime manufactures hydromorphone or oxycodone simply because they are restricted drugs only legally available by prescription. They are still manufactured legally.

Not to mention the much higher cost of trafficking heavy metal weapons as opposed to grams of white powder that are worth hundreds in street value.

[andrew_]

The fact is the less guns on the streets, the less shootings, if you were a serious criminal of course you can get your hands on one if you really wanted to (if guns were banned). But it makes it almost impossible for fucken crazy lunatics who hear voices in their heads to buy and use one. We in Australia have next to no major shootings due to the fact GUNS AREN'T LEGAL! I know you could argue that the demographic is alot smaller but i would bet that gun-related crime percentages are lower hear than they are in the US. Pro gun people just need to open their eyes and stop living like it's the wild west.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

You know fences cost money, right?

'My money is more important than your kids' lives.'

I work in a middle school. Anyone can wander in at any time. They would have to walk past the office and the two older ladies who sit in there. Give up the guns. It is really friggin' simple. If you're such an outlaw warrior that you think you can save the day with your awesome warrior gun skillz, then do what Rambo did in Rambo II, acquire your damned weapons on site and quit packing them around with you.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Smack them in the face with a baseball bat. Jump out the window (what floor you live on may make this practical or not). If your life is in genuine danger, stab them with a kitchen knife. Even here we had a recent incident where a guy was robbed at home by someone wielding a knife. He turned the attacker's knife on him, killing him, and was not prosecuted for it.

Werthead, not everyone is capable of such feats of athleticism, strength, and or coordination. Guys are on average stronger than girls; guys CAN fight off a attacker, many women can not. And, you forget not all are ABLE to, for many reasons. I make no secret of having cerebral palsy; I am far too much a cripple to fight off an attacker but I surely can shoot a gun to save my life.

100% BO has wanted to go here from the begining. This is a ready made political opportunity for which progressives will seize like a dog with a bone.

The Obama admin did state some time ago to never let a good crisis go to waste, forthwith will they commence an attack on the freedom to carry. Freedom and liberty are not much liked by progressives if its not a liberty of which they are fond.

Since the FBI and other law enforcement dont have a definition of Home Invasion, your stats are simply poop.

Actually there are many governmental agencies which colate those statisics. Robbery and Burglary are both included on the FBIs crime page discussed upthread, and linked here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10

For cultural comparison: the only times I've ever seen guns in real life have been at museums.

Thats so strange to me. Many of my best childhood memories are of going target shooting with my father.

There WAS a teacher with guns (no reports on a carry permit or not), and I seriously doubt anyone is glad of her having owned them. So please, it's a little awful to use these people's perspective to beat your drum on this case. If my child was dead honestly I don't think I'd be busying myself wishing someone had or didn't have a gun, I would be wishing my child wasn't dead.

I would love to know why the teacher did not use the weapon. Wouldnt it be horridly ironic if she or he did not bring it inside the building as it was a "gun free zone"?

i don't know stats...i don't care...if gun control will stop this crazy shit from happening i'm for it...but i know it won't crazy fuckers will find a way...but to honor the babies lost i gotta admit...i don't need a gun, tomorrow mine will be consigned to the deep...like some one said earlier a baseball bat will get most jobs done... :smoking:

I hope you never regret that...I hope that you are not in a situation where that gun would have saved a life. Getting rid of yours wont bring the dead kids back, and I imagine you are responsible in its use...I would keep it were I you...as it may be needed one day.

Here's the table. It's not particularly hard to follow, I'm sure you won't have too much difficulty.

Says 12,000 people died, not only 21.

Scot,

And your solution is to restrict magazine size. What a joke.

But the tide is turning scot, and not everyone think that some constitutional amendments are sacred as you and raidne.

Which ones do you wish to get rid of? I happen to think all are needed. Freedom and liberty are precious, and Raidne is correct...gun ownership is a part of freedom, and is an expression as well. I think we should be looking to expand freedom, not decrease it. Banning guns wont help...it will just take away freedom.

[andrew_]

People who argue more guns protect people from people with guns must have some sort of mental disability, that logic doesn't make any sense to an educated person.

[Castel]

Lev,

Saying there is a specified manner to remove a Constitutional amendment doesn't mean they are "sacred". They aren't. But the prospect of a Government that is unfettered by any limits to its power scares the shit out of me. That it would have the authority to wield such unlimited power in as arbitrary a fashion as it sees fit makes my blood run cold.

I also never claimed such magazine capacity limitations are a "solution" to the problem. You asked me what specific "reasonable regulations" I could live with and that was an example of what I think constitutes a "reasonable restriction".

Scott: You think that guns can stop a determined US government? Honestly, the only way I can see that working is if they really, really don't want a fight.

[delete this account pls]

Well, some of us have trained and practiced to a considerable amount, so it isn't magical. But, I do believe I am more likely to be able to defend myself against someone armed with a gun, if I have a gun, than if I don't have one.

Your assuming your opponent isn't trained for some reason. Why exactly? Again, why do you assume you are special? Wouldn't a criminal who regularly uses firearms in their line of work have even more reason to be practised in their use?

So go back to your imaginary scenario (you never answered that question btw - how many times has it happened to you?) It's 2 am. A random psycho kicks down your door. He has a gun. In this scenario, you are telling me that you, groggy, having just woken up, in the dark, having no real idea whats going on, you are more likely to emerge the victor against the attacker who has just entered your house, armed, and intent upon violence?

That's a fantasy.

Also, are you involved in organised crime? Because where I live, that is about the only scenario in which an assailant armed with a firearm would be coming after me. The common junkie on the street that's looking to boost my DVD player has no more access to guns than I do. In fact, where I grew up has experienced a rash of armed hold-ups over the last year. Not a single one of those robbers had a gun, and nobody has been killed, or even significantly hurt, in any of the robberies. When I was mugged, there were five of them and they didnt even have so much as a knife.

I can tell you right now - I am much more safer with my cricket bat against an intruder who almost certainly isnt carrying a gun than you are in your scenario. Your logic only works in a society where responsible normal citizens are the only people with access to guns, and "criminals" for some reason have no idea how to use firearms.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Castel,

I didn't say that. My point is more to Lev's willingness to do away with 4th amendment protections than 2nd.

[The Progressive]

Scot, you also shit a brick and cry tyranny when the government require you to fill out the census form so I really don't think there r much merit to your objection.

[Aemon Stark]

Castel,

I didn't say that. My point is more to Lev's willingness to do away with 4th amendment protections than 2nd.

Splitting hairs. How about getting rid of the 2nd? I don't think anyone supports unlawful searches or seizures, and it's nothing but an attempt at diversion to continue harping on it.

[Usotsuki]

Says 12,000 people died, not only 21.

Ljkeane was pointing out that of the 92 people killed during burglaries in 2011, 21 were definitely murdered by strangers whilst another 26 were murdered by someone as yet unknown he certainly wasn't claiming that the US had only 21 murders a year.

[Howling Mad]

Eventhough police states do make it safe for the general populace to walk about I would rather take my chances with a free society.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aemon,

Test the limits of "reasonable regulation". That can be done without an amendment by simple legislation. If the 2nd is to be eliminated an amendment is required. Lev was the one who wants to eliminate the warrent requirement of the 4th amendment.

[The Progressive]

Aemon,

To be fair to scot, he has explicitly stated that he opposes banning gun period.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Your assuming your opponent isn't trained for some reason. Why exactly? Again, why do you assume you are special? Wouldn't a criminal who regularly uses firearms in their line of work have even more reason to be practised in their use?

So go back to your imaginary scenario (you never answered that question btw - how many times has it happened to you?) It's 2 am. A random psycho kicks down your door. He has a gun. In this scenario, you are telling me that you, groggy, having just woken up, in the dark, having no real idea whats going on, you are more likely to emerge the victor against the attacker who has just entered your house, armed, and intent upon violence?

That's a fantasy.

Also, are you involved in organised crime? Because where I live, that is about the only scenario in which an assailant armed with a firearm would be coming after me. The common junkie on the street that's looking to boost my DVD player has no more access to guns than I do. In fact, where I grew up has experienced a rash of armed hold-ups over the last year. Not a single one of those robbers had a gun, and nobody has been killed, or even significantly hurt, in any of the robberies. When I was mugged, there were five of them and they didnt even have so much as a knife.

I can tell you right now - I am much more safer with my cricket bat against an intruder who almost certainly isnt carrying a gun than you are in your scenario. Your logic only works in a society where responsible normal citizens are the only people with access to guns, and "criminals" for some reason have no idea how to use firearms.

So many assumptions, so little time. First, you are assuming armed criminals all got their guns legally. Second, you are trying to convince everyone these cannot be obtained in the UK. Third, bringing a cricket (or baseball) bat to a gun fight, is an incredibly bad idea. Third, the fantasy is believing I'd be better off unarmed, against an armed assailant. Fourth, I've trained with a variety of weapons, including handguns, rifles and shotguns, under a variety of circumstances with targets at a variety of distances. How, disadvantaged, do you think I'd be on familiar territory at a range of twelve feet?

[Aemon Stark]

So many assumptions, so little time. First, you are assuming armed criminals all got their guns legally. Second, you are trying to convince everyone these cannot be obtained in the UK. Third, bringing a cricket (or baseball) bat to a gun fight, is an incredibly bad idea. Third, the fantasy is believing I'd be better off unarmed, against an armed assailant. Fourth, I've trained with a variety of weapons, including handguns, rifles and shotguns, under a variety of circumstances with targets at a variety of distances. How, disadvantaged, do you think I'd be on familiar territory at a range of twelve feet?

What exactly are you worried about? That someone - a stranger, no less - is going to break in during the night, enter your bedroom, and... threaten your life rather than attempting to steal as much as possible as quickly and as quietly as possible?

Are you concerned about assassins?

Your major disadvantage, of course, would be that you'd be asleep.

[TheRaggedWildling]

So many assumptions, so little time. First, you are assuming armed criminals all got their guns legally. Second, you are trying to convince everyone these cannot be obtained in the UK. Third, bringing a cricket (or baseball) bat to a gun fight, is an incredibly bad idea. Third, the fantasy is believing I'd be better off unarmed, against an armed assailant. Fourth, I've trained with a variety of weapons, including handguns, rifles and shotguns, under a variety of circumstances with targets at a variety of distances. How, disadvantaged, do you think I'd be on familiar territory at a range of twelve feet?

It really depends. You, on your home turf and ready, against an assailant armed with a melee weapon,within 12 feet or so? You'd most likely win. In an alleyway, you get surprised? You get stabbed.