Another tragic gun accident

This one hurts so much, it makes me cry and I can’t even post the details. You’ll have to follow the link yourself. My heart truly goes out to all those close to the accident. The weapon was probably a hunting rifle. But, I;m posting this as I promised to continue to bring to attention the problem that guns pose in our society. For some it’s only about rights. But for others of us, it’s also about protecting the innocent.

  1. #1 by Richard Warnick on June 24, 2009 - 8:29 am

    That story jumped out at me when I looked at the paper this morning. If we wanted to, we could compile dozens and dozens of links to accidental shootings in Utah alone during the last year.

    The other day, I was looking for firearm death and injury statistics on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website. They are hard to find, and the most recent numbers are from three years ago.

    I think the federal government ought to do a better job compiling the numbers, which would put the abundant anecdotal evidence into context.

  2. #2 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 8:39 am

    Becky,

    Its sad that this accident happened but accidents happen every day. Are you out to protect the innocent or only the innocent firearm related accident victims?

    OGDEN, Utah (AP) – Police have identified a 15-month-old girl who drowned over the weekend in Ogden while at a picnic with family members.

    Authorities say Mariana Stilson was pronounced dead at a hospital after she was found in the Ogden River on Sunday.

    The Weber County sheriff’s office says the family was at the Three Mile Bridge area when they lost sight of the girl for about five minutes. The family searched the area once they realized she was missing and found her floating in the water.

    The girl was taken by helicopter to a hospital but was pronounced dead shortly after arrival.

    From the CDC WiSQAR’s site, year, Number of fatalities and rate per 100,000 for children 0-17.

    99 Drowning 1,127 Rate 1.57
    99 Firearm 158 Rate 0.22

    00 Drowning 1,160 Rate 1.60
    00 Firearm 150 Rate 0.21

    01 Drowning 1,037 Rate 1.43
    01 Firearm 125 Rate 0.17

    02 Drowning 1,007 Rate 1.38
    02 Firearm 115 Rate 0.16

    03 Drowning 930 Rate 1.27
    03 Firearm 102 Rate 0.14

    04 Drowning 929 Rate 1.27
    04 Firearm 105 Rate 0.14

    05 Drowning 979 Rate 1.33
    05 Firearm 127 Rate 0.17

    06 Drowning 934 Rate 1.27
    06 Firearm 102 Rate 0.14

    During the 7 year period 4,560 children (rate 2.41) accidentally drowned while during that same period 139 children (rate 0.07) were killed by firearm accidents.

    Children that should have been watched by their parents or guardians died at a rate 34 times greater by drowning then by firearms. Are you really out to protect the innocent?

    The rifle probably wasn’t a hunting rifle, the article states that it was a .22 caliber rifle. Unless there is a squirrel or rabbit season in Utah, it probably wasn’t used for hunting but target shooting.

    I grieve that a a family lost a child, either by drowning or by firearm, but NOTHING can stop people from failing to use common sense. Pass all the laws you want, but that can’t make the person follow them.

    Unless you are advocating a ban on all the ways children die, what can be done to overcome a failure of common sense?

    • #3 by Richard Warnick on June 24, 2009 - 8:46 am

      I agree. Having a gun and ammunition in the house is a failure of common sense, especially when children are present!

  3. #4 by Becky Stauffer on June 24, 2009 - 8:50 am

    Bob S,

    My topic here is just guns. All types of accidents deserve to be addressed separately as the discussion for each will be very different.

    I am not advocating a ban on anything. But I think all those who are so vocal about gun rights also ought to be equally vocal about misuses of guns instead of trying to change the subject.

    What is a gun owner to do? If a gun is to be useful for self defense, it must be loaded and accessible. But that very fact makes it a dangerous thing to have in the house. Seriously, Bob, a lot of people keep loaded guns around when the likelihood of needing them is extremely remote.

  4. #5 by Weer'd Beard on June 24, 2009 - 8:52 am

    I’ll actually agree with Richard on this. Charges should be filed for the owner of the gun who left it loaded and unlocked in a room accessable to small children.

    That’s negligence, and should be treated as such, and no different than if Daddy had left a bucket of lie on the edge of the counter, or let the kids play with a razor blade.

    Of course Bob has a great point. I lost a 5-year old Cousin to a Swimming pool accident. When I bought my house it had a pool. I ripped out the pool, and installed my gun safes, because pools are dangerous!

    And Becky, Richard, and MikeB (I gave up on Cliff) My challenge still stands. Prove to me my guns have more of a chance of hurting myself, my loved ones, or my community at large, than saving an innocent life or doing nothing at all, and I’ll melt them all down.

    If you don’t want to prove that, you have to tell me why.

    Avoiding either challenge simply tells me you don’t actually care about the death of innocent people, and are just using this child’s innocent blood to lubricate the wheels of your hellish political engine.

    • #6 by James Farmer on June 24, 2009 - 10:04 am

      And Becky, Richard, and MikeB (I gave up on Cliff) My challenge still stands. Prove to me my guns have more of a chance of hurting myself, my loved ones, or my community at large, than saving an innocent life or doing nothing at all, and I’ll melt them all down.

      Weird:

      I’ll bite. That is an easy one. The argument is made – properly – using statistics. The fact that you isolate your own circumstance re the guns in your own home evidences your incomprehension of the argument. Spread your circumstance out over hundreds or thousands of homes and see if you get a different result. I suspect you will.

      • #7 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 10:18 am

        James,

        Where is the proof in that?

        Statistics show that the average defensive gun use can be as high as 6,850 times per day (Kleck’s study)

        That is 2.5 million times per year. Yet, less than 15,000 murders,17,000 suicides less than what 500,000 injuries (mostly due to criminal activities).

        So, the odds are using a firearm defensively seems to outweigh the odds of accidental death or injury.

        Weer’d is asking you to prove otherwise…not just say that it will happen but prove. Can you do it?

        • #8 by James Farmer on June 24, 2009 - 10:26 am

          Bob:

          All I was saying is Weird stated something wholly out of context for the intended purpose. Just because his guns have little chance of hurting someone in his home does not justify application of his particular circumstance across the board. Besides, he is asking for proof of a negative which, respectively, I decline to provide.

    • #9 by mikeb302000 on June 24, 2009 - 11:51 am

      We are proving it, Weer’d. You’re just not listening.

  5. #10 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 8:53 am

    Richard,

    That is BUNK. The failure of the common sense was in not storing or securing the firearm while children are in the house.

    We don’t leave knives out on the coffee table for them to get to, right? We put them up and does that work?
    Yep, CDC WISQARs shows ONLY 28 fatalities due to unintentional cutting or piercing for children 0 to 5 for that same 7 year period.

    Is having knives in the house a failure of common sense?

    We teach children not to touch hot stoves or ovens, we teach them not to play with knives, we teach them not to play with the steering wheel, gear shift or ignition in cars….but heaven forbid we teach children not to play with firearms.

    If it is a failure of common sense to have something that can cause a fatal accident in the home…why not push to get rid of bath tubs, knives, cars, swimming pools?

    After all, if you can shower you don’t NEED a swimming pool or bath tub, right?

    • #11 by Richard Warnick on June 24, 2009 - 9:08 am

      When I was a kid in New York, I happily played with toy guns. Unfortunately, in Utah children often have access to real guns in their own home– and may not know the difference.

      Many people in Utah do teach their children, at an early age, to be familiar with REAL firearms. It’s part of the culture here.

  6. #12 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 9:13 am

    Becky,

    The point that I am trying to make is that you are only addressing a very small percentage of the fatal accidents that happen to children.

    Sort of hard to say you want to save lives when you are starting with something that takes 34 times less then drowning. Kinda makes a person wonder if there isn’t another agenda in play.

    But I think all those who are so vocal about gun rights also ought to be equally vocal about misuses of guns instead of trying to change the subject.

    I am not trying to change the subject. I trying to put the subject into context and discuss it.

    I’ll ask again…what law, what regulation, what rule, what can we do that will make people exercise common sense???

    The parents in the drowning story allowed a 5 year old to wander off near the edge of a river….is that common sense?
    What can be done to stop that type of behavior?

    The grandparents in the shooting accident failed to secure a firearm when they knew kids were in the house. They, as Weer’d says, should be investigated for criminal negligence just like the parents in the drowning.

    What is a gun owner to do? If a gun is to be useful for self defense, it must be loaded and accessible. But that very fact makes it a dangerous thing to have in the house.

    Store the firearms in an appropriate manner based on the age, education level about firearms, and activity in the house.

    I use some very inexpensive storage methods for firearms that provide adequate protection from a child’s curiosity. I also move firearms to an more inaccessible location when I have small children in the house. Those are common sense precautions that should be taken….what law will make a person do that?

    You are right that a firearm must be loaded and accessible for it to be used in self defense. Isn’t that a strong case for allowing people to actually carry their firearms and making the laws reflect that?

    Firearms carried by an adult, instead of left in a closet or nightstand, are less likely to be found and played with by a child, wouldn’t you agree?

    Next we can start foundations and charities to provide safe storage options at low or no cost to families with children. We have such organizations to provide car seats…let’s use that model.

    A gun vault like this can be had for as low as 50 dollars.

    How about a tax credit for people that purchase safe storage– so that it is a zero cost investment in protecting the innocent.

    • #13 by Richard Warnick on June 24, 2009 - 9:27 am

      How about removing the exemption of firearms from the Consumer Product Safety Act?

      • #14 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 10:01 am

        Are you going to place every item under the Consumer Product Safety Act?

        Consumer Product Safety Act

        The CPSA (available in PDF), enacted in 1972, is CPSC’s umbrella statute. It established the agency, defines its basic authority, and provides that when the CPSC finds an unreasonable risk of injury associated with a consumer product it can develop a standard to reduce or eliminate the risk.

        So, have the number of firearm related injuries associated with the PRODUCT, not the MISUSE OF the PRODUCT risen to an unreasonable level?

        Someone shooting a person intentionally isn’t a risk associated with the product but with the criminal.

        Not all consumer products are covered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, are they?

        Pools aren’t covered, but pool slides are.

        Regular beds aren’t covered but bunk beds are.

        Manually operated garage doors aren’t covered but automatic doors are.

        Are you getting the point Richard? The government isn’t the solution for every problem, it isn’t even the solution for this problem.

        The firearm manufacturers have done a great job in improving the safety of their firearms. The tragic accident of the 5 year old girl had nothing to do with the safety or design of the firearm any more then it had to do with the drowning of a child in a pool.

        A major reason the firearm exemption should take place is the ability of the CPSC would conflict with the 2nd amendment.

        The CPSA also provides the authority to ban a product if there is no feasible standard, and it gives CPSC authority to pursue recalls for products that present a substantial product hazard.

        That whole pesky…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, and the individual rights thing keeps the CPSC from being able to ban firearms…no doubt to the dismay of gun banners

        “Firearms are currently exempt from the health and safety laws that apply to every other consumer product in America, from toasters to teddy bears. Applying those same standards to guns is the real key to reducing firearm death and injury in America. Under these standards, handguns would be banned because of their high risk and low utility.” – Violence Policy Center, 3/16/99.

        • #15 by Richard Warnick on June 24, 2009 - 10:48 am

          I think it’s possible to design a rifle that cannot be fired by a five-year-old. But there’s no incentive to do so, because the Gun Lobby protects firearms manufacturers.

          • #16 by Weer'd Beard on June 24, 2009 - 12:40 pm

            If you don’t leave it with a chambered round it effectivly can’t.

            Hence my above statement of negligence.

            But then again, It’s not like you’ve made ANY effort to show that you give a damn about a five-year-old….you just want to ban guns.

  7. #17 by Weer'd Beard on June 24, 2009 - 9:42 am

    What would that change Richard? Guns that don’t perform safely and as advertised are recalled very quickly by their maker.

    I can’t remember the last time I heard about an actual accidental discharge of a modern firearm. I do know of litigation underway against FNH for the faulty disconnector on their FNH FiveSeveN pistol that resulted in the destruction of a gun when it fired out of battery (no injuries).

    Also Richard, you going to answer why you aren’t addressing my challenge?

  8. #18 by mike w. on June 24, 2009 - 10:09 am

    “But I think all those who are so vocal about gun rights also ought to be equally vocal about misuses of guns instead of trying to change the subject”

    Are you vocal and outspoken every time someone misuses their car? Do you drink ever? If so, are you vocal and quick to condemn every single death or crime caused by irresponsible alcohol use? What about Knives? You have them in your kitchen right? As a knife owner, why are you not speaking out against knife crime?

    Maybe because since you’re not part of the problem and don’t misuse those items you don’t feel the need to speak out every time someone is irresponsible with the tools you also use.

    • #19 by Weer'd Beard on June 24, 2009 - 10:15 am

      That and it’s nearly impossible for somebody to misuse a firearm without committing a serious crime that would take all firearms away from them.

      The laws work pretty good. Some need to be better enforced, others do little good and need to be repealed.

      Bottom line, My guns, and the guns of those who are committing no crimes do a statistically insignificant amount of harm….while doing a much larger amount of good.

      Hence why you guys are pretending I never offer my challenge, even tho I’ve repeated it in 3 seperate threads here, and a large number of blogs.

    • #20 by Cliff Lyon on June 24, 2009 - 12:15 pm

      Mikew, You are still a bit knew around here, but I’ve warned you before, and Ill do it one more time. We have thoroughly established the fact that your ‘all things that cause death are like guns’ argument. Its tired. No honest person buys it and you are embarrassing yourself.

      I won’t ban you or anything, so don’ worry. BobS still does it and we haven’t banned him. Its just that I was hoping someone new might come along and prove to me that not all the gun freaks are pathetic idiots.

      I implore you to rise to the challenge of trying a new argument that you wouldn’t be embarrassed to make in person to say, a class of 8th-graders from inner city Detriot.

  9. #21 by jdberger on June 24, 2009 - 10:10 am

    We teach our children how to put a condom on a banana but we’re afraid to teach them basic firearms safety because that might pique their interest.

    What a country.

  10. #22 by mike w. on June 24, 2009 - 10:22 am

    Not only that, but we are taught to understand and respect a myriad of other items that are potentially dangerous.

    Then, when it comes to guns it’s “OMG, EVIL THINGS, MUST REMAIN FEARFUL AND IGNORANT.”

    I’ll tell you what’s dangerous. Ignorance.

  11. #23 by mike w. on June 24, 2009 - 11:01 am

    I think it’s possible to design a rifle that cannot be fired by a five-year-old. But there’s no incentive to do so, because the Gun Lobby protects firearms manufacturers.

    Then enlighten us, since you obvously know SOOO much about firearms.

    How are you going to make something that a young child cannot fire that can still be easily and effectively manipulated by women, the elderly, or those with physical disabilities?

    • #24 by Richard Warnick on June 24, 2009 - 11:28 am

      No need for me to design anything. There are firearms like that already.

      • #25 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 11:35 am

        Great Richard,

        Then those with small children who WANT to buy a mechanism can…and those that don’t want to buy it don’t have to…you believe in the right to choose, don’t you?

        That firearm also does not stop a 5 year old from picking up the ring and using it. If a adult is negligent enough to leave a firearm available, what is to stop them from leaving the ring available also?

        • #26 by Richard Warnick on June 24, 2009 - 11:43 am

          I still think the only smart way to go is not to have a gun and ammunition in your house at all. Then all you have to worry about is a garage door malfunction ;-)

  12. #27 by .45 on June 24, 2009 - 11:24 am

    This incident falls under the category of leaving your kid in the car locked up at the mall on a summer’s day.

    It isn’t the weapon, it is the stupid parents fault, charge them with manslaughter and negligence.

    I just read an article from Canada, idiot dad steals bottle of methadone from clinic as recovering heroin addict under state supervision. 4 year old finds said bottle and drinks it at the home. Dies. Parents charged with manslaughter. Think the negligent state program gets charged for not securing entire bottles of methadone? Of course not, it is the bottle’s fault after all. If there were no bottle….

    The appeal to the sob story as a means of fomenting “gun control” is pathetic by now, the incident is tragic, but Americans are too smart to give up rights because of the actions of the stupid or criminal. We well know that stupid cannot be fixed.

  13. #28 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 11:46 am

    Richard,

    Now I’m a little confused. You first said this

    #14 by Richard Warnick – June 24th, 2009 at 10:48

    I think it’s possible to design a rifle that cannot be fired by a five-year-old. But there’s no incentive to do so, because the Gun Lobby protects firearms manufacturers.

    Then you turn around and say

    #21 by Richard Warnick – June 24th, 2009 at 11:28

    No need for me to design anything. There are firearms like that already.

    And when I go to your link

    I see there are several listed there. Including the Magloc which is on the market.

    Prototypes

    Colt

    Initial prototypes produced by Colt’s Manufacturing Company involved the intended user wearing a bracelet that emitted a radio signal that would activate a mechanism inside the pistol to allow the gun to be fired. The project was apparently scrapped over concerns of the batteries in the bracelet and the pistol failing .

    Mossberg

    In 1999, Mossberg Shotguns, through its subsidiary Advanced Ordnance and an electronics design contractor KinTech Manufacturing developed a “Smart” shotgun using RFID technology. This product is currently being marketed by IGun Technology Corp. The advantage with this design was that the ring worn by the owner and used to identify the owner has a passive tag (meaning no batteries) that relies on proximity to the gun for power. The battery pack in the gun is designed to last up to 10 years when not used or up to 8 hours of continual usage (meaning always ready to be fired). The gun has low-battery indication.

    New Jersey Institute of Technology

    A current prototype personalized gun relies on biometric sensors in the grip and trigger that can track a gun owner’s hand size, strength, and Dynamic grip style also known as (DGR) Dynamic Grip Recognition. The gun is programmed to recognize only the owner or anyone whom the owner wishes to authorize. One of the major projects involves the New Jersey Institute of Technology team, which claims the prototype identifies gun owners with 90% accuracy.

    So, which is it?

    Is the gun lobby preventing people from developing smart gun technology or are there already designs out there?

    edited to add

    I still think the only smart way to go is not to have a gun and ammunition in your house at all. Then all you have to worry about is a garage door malfunction ;-)

    Isn’t that the great thing about America…if you think not having firearms is the best way to go…MORE POWER TO YOU.

    I on the other hand prefer to have firearms in my house and just wish you and other busy bodies would stop sticking your noses into my business.

    • #29 by Richard Warnick on June 24, 2009 - 12:02 pm

      Bob S.–

      The operative word in the Wikipedia article is “prototype.” Very few of these “smart guns” are actually on the market.

      I said: (1) that it’s possible to design a rifle that cannot be fired by a five-year-old and (2) that there is no incentive to do so. Both statements are correct, which is more than you can say for the counter-arguments that have been offered here.

      Because the Gun Lobby runs interference for firearms manufacturers, it’s almost impossible to sue them or regulate them.

      No one trying to force you, as an individual, to behave safely. I do think that it’s wrong to shield the gun industry from the consequences of the mayhem caused by their products.

      • #30 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 12:17 pm

        Richard,

        You said that thanks to the GUN LOBBY there are no incentives to DESIGN a product. Obviously, that is incorrect since the gun manufacturers and others are designing smart guns.

        Magloc is a product that is on the market and in use by those that want it.

        Thus, going to back to the CSPC, there is no need for the CSPC to regulate firearms….because people are already providing standards and safety devices.

        Sorry but the firearm manufacturers are not protected from design failures and issues. Show me any place, any law that says they are

        What they are protected from is law suits arising from the criminal mis-use of their products. Would it be fair for Westinghouse to be sued because some thug bashed a victim over the head with a blender? Of course not…that isn’t a legal use of the product.

        I can legally use my firearms for target practice, I can use them to legally stop a crime. I can NOT use a lawful product to commit a crime.

        Should we expect people to sue Cadillac because an Escalade was used in a drive by shooting?

  14. #31 by Cliff Lyon on June 24, 2009 - 12:06 pm

    Its a sad day when as many kids are dying doing something that should be impossible (getting killed by a gun) as die doing what every kid hopefully gets to do everyday in the summer.

    If you counted all the kid/swimming/days vs kid-gun/ encounters the ratio should be an order of magnitude.

    Like 500 million/per year kid/swimming/days
    vs 5 hundred kid/ gun encounters. And yet the same number of kids die from each.

    IOW 1: 1,000,000

    How shall we characterize the sort of argument that would ignore this glaring reality?

    What’dya think Bob, is my ratio off by much? Even if its off by fifty percent (which it isn’t), would your mom really approve of your treating us like dumb fuckers?

    • #32 by .45 on June 24, 2009 - 12:17 pm

      So Cliff, what is your solution? State is clearly. what do you want done?

    • #33 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 12:42 pm

      Cliff,

      Now, I’ll grant that more kids swim then shoot but I think you are wrong – again.

      Where are you pulling your 500 kid gun encounter number from?

      Heck, I know of kids at our sportsman club that shoot that often a year.

      Then there are the Scouts. Rifle and Shot gun are two very popular merit badges There are approximately 5,000,000 kids in the Boy Scout program.

      So, I think your ratio is off by way more then 50%.

      As far as my mom approving of the way I’m treating you…..she would ask are you being treated as you deserve. I think the answer is yes….you are being treated as you act.

  15. #34 by Becky Stauffer on June 24, 2009 - 12:16 pm

    Weer’d,

    See Cliff’s response and tell me you plan on smelting soon.

    I have personal experience with immediate friends who’ve had tragic accidents with guns, including one similar to this. The first thing that happens is a purging of all guns from the house. And believe me, no legal action is needed in these cases. The adults involved serve a life sentence from that day forward. It is an unbelievably sad and painful thing to deal with.

    And by the way, I don’t personally know a single person who has needed or used a gun in self defense (military and police don’t count). How about you Bob? JD? Weer’d?

  16. #35 by .45 on June 24, 2009 - 12:22 pm

    Becky, that you know no one, is utterly irrelevant. As is the case with the others. Do you or anyone have a life insurance policy? Do you know anyone that it is written on that has collected?

    I do know someone that has used a firearm. Does that mean anything to you?

  17. #36 by .45 on June 24, 2009 - 12:24 pm

    Swimming isn’t much like self defense Cliff, just like your mom keeps those unable to swim out of the deep end to prevent drowning, the same is true of a gun.

    It is why public pools are locked up when not in use, the factors for safe swimming are unavailable when children act alone. Not that this keeps them from drowning.

  18. #37 by .45 on June 24, 2009 - 12:32 pm

    “Because the Gun Lobby runs interference for firearms manufacturers, it’s almost impossible to sue them or regulate them”.

    This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. For legal gun owners there is no end of regulation. It is on the criminal end that there is trouble. Unlocked gun loaded or with available ammunition in the home is a criminal act should events lead to innocent deaths.

    Interesting cultural note involving a privilege, not a right like personal gun ownership. In Germany if your car is stolen and you left the keys in it, you are charged with contributing to a crime, if there is damage or deaths related to the crime, then you are charged as partially responsible.

    Considering that people there regularly drive 120 mph legally, their car is far more a deadly weapon, without intent, than anyone’s locked up guns. At one point Germans suffered 60k deaths a year to auto accidents, with a 1/4 of our population. This is changing, but was culturally accepted, as are high driving speeds, even today, despite the damage to public safety, you have the right in Germany to tear ass willy nilly in what are practical race cars.

    • #38 by James Farmer on June 24, 2009 - 1:03 pm

      Glenn:

      Is there a point to this comment?

      • #39 by .45 on June 24, 2009 - 1:16 pm

        Not being Glen, I will answer this anyway Jim. First what do you think the point is? Are you really as educated as you say?

        Risk is culturally accepted based on the history and preferences of a nation’s people. The point being Americans have a right to own and bear arms, including guns, and that the societal detriment has been accepted here, much like legally driving 140 mph cars is accepted in Germany despite mass carnage on their roads. No matter the technology humans cannot respond in time at 140 MPH to events on uncontrolled roadways, yet the “right’ to drive so is unimpeded. Cultural imperative. Go for a spin over there and you will know the meaning of crazy driving.

  19. #40 by jdberger on June 24, 2009 - 12:35 pm

    I know a number of people who’ve had to use a gun in self defense. Me. A jeweler I know. A pawnbroker. A lawyer. A salesman. A doctor. A drug rep. Of those, only 3 fired the gun. Of those, only one killed the attacker(s) (the jeweler).

    I also know a couple of people who wish they had a gun to use in self defense when they were victimized.

    The odds of being a victim of a violent crime during adulthood are greater than 2 to 1. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)

    More than one in three (35 percent) of adults are estimated to fall victim to violent crime. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)

    Cliff. Your numbers are speculative and don’t merit a response.

  20. #41 by mike w. on June 24, 2009 - 12:45 pm

    I’m glad you don’t know somone who needed a gun in self-defense. I’ve known several, including my grandmother, who spent time home alone while my grandpa was deployed. She didn’t have to fire it thankfully. I also know someone who recently DID have to use his. He was carrying at the time and it was an attempted carjacking. He shot one, the other ran. Both were caught and he was not charged with any wrongdoing.

    I also know 2 people who committed suicide with a firearm.

    Re – Smart guns – Here we have a solution in search of a problem. One of the great things about guns is that they are simple and egalitarian in nature. The last thing I want to do is introduce technology that can fail when I need the gun. (Murphy’s law)

    If smart guns are so great why aren’t the police & military switching to them? Perhaps because they’re less effective and potentially dangerous.

    I like my guns as simple as possible with no “active safety features” whatsoever. I pull the trigger on a loaded weapon and it goes bang. The last thing I want to do is introduce points of failure into the system.

  21. #42 by Weer'd Beard on June 24, 2009 - 12:49 pm

    +1 jd

    I know a few people who used a gun to stop a violent crime (none fired a shot) I know a LOT more who carry (mostly women) because they were assualted and were unable to defend themselves with bare/hands improvised weapons.

    No smelting yet, but an attempt is showing some concern for people other than yourself. Tho I still don’t belive you just yet.

  22. #43 by .45 on June 24, 2009 - 12:50 pm

    If honesty was a virtue of Cliff’s, we would have to be comparing the # of “accidents” of children while being supervised in the activity of shooting guns, with said same as supervised swimming.

    Then compare the incidents of same subjects with children engaged in the activity without experienced adults. In the case of swimming the adult would have to know how to swim.

    Most kids drown on their own unsupervised. I am more than sure everyone knows a kid that did growing up. Same situations follow with guns.

  23. #44 by mike w. on June 24, 2009 - 12:51 pm

    Unlocked gun loaded or with available ammunition in the home is a criminal act should events lead to innocent deaths.

    Yup, and such situations are of course ALREADY covered by existing laws regarding criminal negligence. No doubt the OneUtah crowd thinks the answer is MORE LAWS with which to burden the law-abiding.

  24. #45 by jdberger on June 24, 2009 - 12:52 pm

    A current prototype personalized gun relies on biometric sensors in the grip and trigger that can track a gun owner’s hand size, strength, and Dynamic grip style also known as (DGR) Dynamic Grip Recognition. The gun is programmed to recognize only the owner or anyone whom the owner wishes to authorize. One of the major projects involves the New Jersey Institute of Technology team, which claims the prototype identifies gun owners with 90% accuracy.

    Oh come on, Mike! Isn’t “bang” 9 out of 10 times good enough for you?

  25. #46 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 12:55 pm

    Becky,

    And by the way, I don’t personally know a single person who has needed or used a gun in self defense (military and police don’t count). How about you Bob? JD? Weer’d?

    What difference does that make?

    I’ve never known someone who needed catastrophic medical insurance…does that mean we should make it illegal?

    I’ve never known someone who has used a winter car survival kit….should we restrict access to those also?

    Just because you don’t have personal experience or know people with personal experience in using firearms in self defense doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

    From June 19, 2009 Central Florida channel 13:

    ALTAMONTE SPRINGS — A masked suspect was shot and killed outside an Altamonte Springs home.

    Deputies arrived on the scene just before 4 a.m. Friday on the 300 block of Magnolia Street just off of Ronald Regan Boulevard.

    A woman woke up when she heard someone trying to kick in the door of her home. Seminole County Sheriff’s deputies say that’s when her husband went to the door and shot twice at Donald Salaam. Salaam, 21, was hit once in the chest.

    The wife was on the phone with a 911 dispatcher when the shots were fired.

    Investigators say it appears the homeowner was justified.

    “Our homeowner didn’t have an obligation to retreat. He is able to protect his property,” said Lt. James Clark, of the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office. “The questions we’re trying to answer: If he was in fear for his life and the life of his wife. If he was, he would be justified in this shooting.”

    Detectives are trying to determine if Salaam acted alone.
    Seminole County deputies say Salaam has an extensive criminal history involving drugs, fleeing/eluding law enforcement. He was also investigated for a previous armed robbery.

    Should this couple have to have leave their home as Richard previously suggested?

  26. #47 by mike w. on June 24, 2009 - 12:56 pm

    Good Post JD

    I have an idea! We can give all police agencies guns that only go bang 90% of the time. I wonder what their reaction would be.

    Aren’t “smart guns” great!?

  27. #48 by .45 on June 24, 2009 - 12:56 pm

    The goal is banning of personal gun ownership for whatever reason by progs, ( progs like frogs, ribbit, ribbet, to the criminal give the gibbet). Once this is accepted, all the rest of the arguments and run around should simply be ignored for the larger issue.

    The Bill of Rights, in word, legal decision, and historical context, provide the right to bear arms in self defense, as an inalienable right.

    The damage of people from activities unlawful, and via stupid “accident” are part and parcel of the dangers of life in America.

  28. #49 by mike w. on June 24, 2009 - 1:01 pm

    Short version of .45’s comment. “Liberty involves risk. Deal with it.”

    Honestly, if you don’t like living somewhere where individual liberties are protected there are plenty of other “enlightened,” “progressive” countries where you can live.

    • #50 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 1:17 pm

      Heck, they don’t even have to move.

      They are welcome to stay here in America and form their own community. In fact I encourage that.

      It has to be voluntary that the people living there are disarmed…but it also have to be publicized.

      Since the issue seems to the firearms themselves and not the person using them…I would suggest that they don’t arm their police force.

      That they request the county sheriff, state police, and all federal law enforcement — not show up armed. Of course, I don’t know any of those that would voluntarily disarm in the face of a crime…so maybe they wouldn’t get any outside assistance.

      Hmm, thinking more about this give me an idea to also help the economy. There are places like Flint Michigan that are having to demolish homes, entire neighborhoods.

      Why not get all of your peace loving, firearm despising fellows together and move to Flint Michigan?

      Or any of these areas

      1.) Cincinnati, Central Pwky./Liberty St.
      2.) Chicago, State St./Garfield Blvd.
      3.) Miami, 7th Ave./North River Dr.
      4.) Jacksonville, Beaver St./Broad St.
      5.) Baltimore, North Ave./Belair Rd.
      6.) Kansas City, Bales Ave./30th St.
      7.) Memphis, Warford St./Mt. Olive Rd.
      8.) Kansas City, Forest Ave./41st St.
      9.) Dallas, Route 352/Scyene Rd.
      10.) Richmond, Va., Church Hill

      The economy gets a boost from people buying homes…then buying items to put in the homes…then buying items to replace what was stolen….cars might have to be replaced when they are stolen.

      What do you say folks? Cliff, Richard, Becky? Willing to live your principles and form your own community…show us how your ideas function in the real world?

      • #51 by James Farmer on June 24, 2009 - 1:42 pm

        Bob.

        Now you are sounding like an idiot!

        • #52 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 1:48 pm

          LOL!!

          Nice reasoned response to the argument I see James.

  29. #53 by .45 on June 24, 2009 - 1:42 pm

    Let’s go back to Cliff’s swimming analogy.

    Swimming is dangerous, the medium cannot support human life once we are under it. There is absolutely no human need to enter deep water for the purposes of “swimming”. The only exceptions would be divers that risk their lives recovering items or helping to build underwater infrastructure.

    Despite there being absolutely no real physical need to swim for humans, it is the #1 recreational activity in the world, more humans swim for pleasure than any other single official “recreation”. Sex is not included in recreation it is rather procreation by biological definition.

    When swimming, people die, a lot of people. Swimming does not defend anyone, does not deter bad acts from others, it is simple pleasure. We accept this culturally and have made provisions for “safe” swimming”. Not swimming after meals, not swimming without flotation, supervision, avoiding areas of tide and current, etc. etc.

    Guns actually have a purpose, self defense, an inalienable right, not as trivial as swimming. There are rules of conduct and licensing to legally own a firearm. I have not yet learned of a license required to swim, or any required qualification regimen. Yet there it is, an activity that kills that truly has no practical purpose but recreation which can be found in any number of “safer’ activities.

    Face it Cliff, you are just don’t like guns, and are scared of them. That is OK, but does not lead to the desire you have to ban guns, anymore than a person’s fear of the deep should ban other people from swimming that wish to risk it. Drownings are bad and avoidable, M-Kay? Free society and all, with the historical precedents explaining the personal right to own and use guns for self protection, as well as the right to swim.

  30. #54 by .45 on June 24, 2009 - 1:44 pm

    …and before you go there, drowning in the bathtub by children is quite common, what are we to do? Drowning murders as well. No more baths!!! Shower stalls ONLY!!

  31. #55 by .45 on June 24, 2009 - 1:47 pm

    “Now you are sounding like an idiot!”

    Putting that Ph.D to good work I see eh Jim?

    What is your suggestion concerning gun ownership? Do you have a point?

    • #56 by James Farmer on June 24, 2009 - 2:04 pm

      Here’s the point. Coming at the issue from extremes is unlikely to solve the problem – which is too much gun violence. There are middle-road and reasoned approaches, like instituting background checks for all sales of guns and restricting the types of assault weapons currently available. Suggesting folks form gun-free communities like the comment above is just stupid – and, to your benefit, I am assuming that is precisely the way you intended the comment.

      • #57 by Richard Warnick on June 24, 2009 - 2:24 pm

        Just for the record, IMHO only one side is coming from the extreme in this particular discussion.

      • #58 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 2:28 pm

        James,

        Why limit it to “gun violence”?

        Contrary to Richard’s insistence, the Department of Justice really does say that only 9% of all violent crime involves a firearm. Heck, even aggravated assault only involves a firearm 21.9% of the time.

        Why not focus on all violent crime?

        There are middle of the road solutions that are already in place. Don’t start with the existing laws, restrictions and requirements then say we need to implement more to get to the middle of the road.

        We are already there and past that point. Is the handgun ban in Chicago middle of the road? Was the D.C ban middle of the road?

        The proposed restrictions do nothing that impacts the criminals more than they impact the law abiding owners. That makes the “solutions” unacceptable.

        I’ve yet to see some explain how requiring all private transactions to go through a FFL is going to stop criminals from getting firearms. They simply use straw purchasers now or steal them…what will change?

        Banning “assault weapons” bases on cosmetic features is also ridiculous. A pistol grip helps with ergonomic and alignment for better accuracy. Ineffective laws designed to increase costs or convenience do nothing to stop crime….again –isn’t that the purpose, not just “gun crime?

        Suggesting folks form gun-free communities like the comment above is just stupid – and, to your benefit, I am assuming that is precisely the way you intended the comment.

        It was meant to point out the ridiculousness of the gun banner’s dream of no firearms. Even if the criminals didn’t use firearms…would you want to live in a community were the police and the citizens weren’t armed?

        I find it hypocritical that people who want to restrict the use of firearms live in communities protected by people with firearms.

        Richard stated that people — women should run out of their houses instead of fighting back against a rapist who returned….yet is he willing to live in a gun free community?

        Isn’t it hypocritical to say that we need to get assault weapons off the street when those are the same weapons law enforcement use to protect people?

        I’ll support measure to control crime that will IMPACT crime. As .45 points out there are areas where the law abiding people are already disarmed BY LAW. Schools for example…have those laws stopped mass murders at schools? Have those laws prevented criminals from shooting individuals on school grounds?

  32. #59 by .45 on June 24, 2009 - 2:15 pm

    So you would rather be like Mexico, where personal gun ownership is illegal, and the law abiding are without recourse to protect themselves.

    Never mind that Mexico’s per capita murder rate is out the window higher than our own, the bulk of murder and mayhem carried out by hand, knife and bludgeon, etc. Guns in proper hands present a formidable deterrent. The laws for legally being a “formidable deterrent” in America, are many pages long.

    There are gun free communities Jim in America, anyplace that prohibits guns on premises, universities, churches, and such that are unfortunately a favored target of mass murdering psychopaths. I do believe that the Amish or Mennonites are as well a gun free community, though I am not sure. So as foolish as it may sound to you, such unarmed communities are already in existence.

  33. #60 by jdberger on June 24, 2009 - 2:17 pm

    James, you frame the problem in that there is too much gun violence – which is great if you’re starting from zero.

    What would be an acceptible level of gun violence?

    What would be an acceptible level of good ole regular violence?

  34. #61 by .45 on June 24, 2009 - 2:23 pm

    The murder rate is highest in nations that do not either have access to guns legally, or simply have not the means to make or purchase them.

    It is very obvious that guns do 3 things. Deter, stop, and kill criminals in the commission of their crimes. The misuse (including mis-storage) of a gun in any way from there is no different than a person driving their vehicle drunk, which kills more people than guns, and is in no way an inalienable right, though laws have been passed now at the state level allowing, no demanding, convicted drunk drivers be granted a provisional license to accommodate their and our own economy, i.e. work.

  35. #62 by Weer'd Beard on June 24, 2009 - 2:47 pm

    “James,

    Why limit it to “gun violence”?”

    Because Anti-gun people don’t actually care about violence, they care about guns and their agenda.

    This is why Becky refuses to look at statistics but will post isolated events that are related by her own variables and use them as unethical “Data” for her agenda.

    Cliff, Richard, and the others play the same game.

    They won’t look at the data because in actuality they likely HAVE looked at the data and found it doesn’t support their narrow world view.

    Rather than adjust their ideology to better fit reality, they work to substitute reality with a fiction of their own making.

    I should know, I used to be one of them. But unlike Cliff, Becky, Richard, MikeB et al, there was only so far I could bend reality before something broke.

    • #63 by Richard Warnick on June 24, 2009 - 3:01 pm

      Hey bearded guy, you want data?

      FACT: In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: 12,791 homicides (41% of total deaths), 16,883 suicides (55% of total deaths), 642 unintentional shootings (2% of total deaths), 360 from legal intervention (1.2% of total deaths) and 220 from undetermined intent (.8% of total deaths).

      (Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2009.)

      FACT: While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.

      (A Kellerman, et al. Journal of Trauma, August 1998; Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. “The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries.” Annu.Rev Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40.)

      FACT: A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.

      (Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership.” NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)

      FACT: Despite popular belief, young children do possess the physical strength to fire a gun: 25% of 3-to-4-year-olds, 70% of 5-to-6-year-olds, and 90% of 7-to-8-year-olds can fire most handguns.

      (Naureckas, SM, Christoffel, KK, et al. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 1995.)

      FACT: 48% of gun-owning households with children do NOT regularly make sure that guns are equipped with child safety locks or other trigger locks.

      (Peter Hart Research Associates poll, 1999.)

      FACT: 59% of students in grades six through twelve know where to get a gun if they want one, and two thirds of these students say they can acquire a firearm within 24 hours.

      (Harvard School of Public Health.)

      FACT: Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States.

      (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence)

  36. #64 by jdberger on June 24, 2009 - 3:30 pm

    FACT: While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.

    (A Kellerman, et al. Journal of Trauma, August 1998; Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. “The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries.” Annu.Rev Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40.)

    FACT: A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.

    (Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership.” NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)

    You realize that these two offer different statistics. And they reference the same author.

    The infamous Dr. Kellerman.

    His original estimate was 47x. (Richard, you’ve used that one yourself).

    FACT: 48% of gun-owning households with children do NOT regularly make sure that guns are equipped with child safety locks or other trigger locks.

    (Peter Hart Research Associates poll, 1999.)

    I know a bunch of people in this group. The have safes and vaults. Some have household members that qualify as “children” but are in their late teens. Some have children who’ve always had a .22 propped up in a closet (like when I was a child).

  37. #65 by mike w. on June 24, 2009 - 3:32 pm

    OH wow! Richard can post a list of crap from an Illinois Anti-gun advocacy group. Good for him. They cited the debunked Kellermann study several times I see.

    I also see several citations from paid anti-gun groups. Even citations from The Brady Campaign (laughable Dick, really…)

    Boy, you give groups money to come to a specific conclusion and……they come to that conclusion. SHOCKING!

    I look at Hart Research shows they are firmly in the anti-gun camp. Check out their list of clients.

    1. National SAFE KIDS – Anti-gun grouip
    2. ACLU – Anti-Gun Group (though I support them in their defense of the rest of the Constitution)
    3. Ceasefire
    4. Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
    5. Family Violence Prevention Fund
    6. Handgun Control Inc. (I.E. The Brady Campaign)

    http://www.hartresearch.com/clients/nonprofit.html

    I can’t imagine what side of the issue they might come down on?…..

    • #66 by mikeb302000 on June 25, 2009 - 6:46 am

      Kellerman is no more “debunked” than Kleck is. Both are laughing stocks to the other side. But both have some good things to offer, like the Kellerman stats posted above.

      Mike W., In your own experience you’ve had people close ot you use guns defensively and others commit suicide. What some of us are saying is the misuse of guns outweighs their use.

      • #67 by Bob S. on June 25, 2009 - 7:29 am

        MikeB,

        Since you believe Kleck to be debunked…why don’t you post the evidence or studies debunking it or at least sections and we will let the people decide, eh?

        Here is part of the Suter Critique debunking Kellermann. I’ll highlight sections for those with the dreaded 1Utah reading comprehension failure syndrome.

        “Kellermann’s article pretends to be a study of ‘Home Invasion Crimes,’ but a majority (51%) of his cases were burglaries, crimes of stealth in which confrontation is avoided by the criminal (except in unarmed countries such as in Europe where, absent the general deterrent effect of widespread gun ownership, confrontations are triple the US rates[1]). In such stealthy crimes, quite unlike the typical forced entry and terrorization of occupants in true ‘home invasion,’ guns are little expected to be actively used for protection.[2] He pretends to study the protective uses of guns, but his study is limited to situations little expected to be associated with the active, protective uses of guns. In all but a few percent of protective gun use, the assailant is frightened away without a shot being fired,[2] so the successful protective uses of guns are not expected to end up in emergency rooms, police departments, or newspapers, but Kellermann’s study included only 198 cases hand-picked from the minority of Atlanta’s crimes in which a police report was filed. Kellermann’s cases excluded multi-family dwellings, the type of housing in which most of Atlanta’s population resides. In so doing, he excluded the ‘projects’ and apartment buildings in the poorer areas where crime is more rampant. His study excluded domestic abuse, sexual assault, and commercial armed robbery. In other words, Kellermann excluded the most important crimes inviting protective uses of guns.[2] [NOTE: Because domestic abuse and commercial armed robbery are numerically the greatest instances of the protective uses of guns, but rape is "merely" important and not numerically high, I chose to lump these together as "important" to meet the word limit for JAMA letters] He selected a small sample skewed toward the failures of protection, those crimes that necessitated a police report. His study appears to have been shrewdly designed to avoid finding the protective benefits of guns – only the latest instance in a pattern of politicized research funded by beleaguered taxpayers.[3] What is next? a study showing the infrequency of gun use in Quaker-on-Quaker crime?
        {Edited to add — THAT MADE ME LAUGH}

        “Even so, Kellermann’s current study confirms one of our most important observations, that guns are the safest and most effective means of protection[2-5], further exposing the flaws in his earlier studies[3] claiming it is dangerous to use a gun for protection. Not one of Kellermann’s gun defenders was injured. Kellermann notes, ‘Use of a firearm for self-defense is associated with a lower risk of injury than resistance by other means, but the implication of this finding is unclear.’ ‘Unclear’? – only to those struggling to deny the mounting evidence in the peer-reviewed literature that guns are the safest and most effective means of protection and that 2.5 million Americans uses guns annually to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods.[5] Guns save lives, prevent injuries, reduce medical costs (because deaths and injuries are averted), and guns protect property.[4]…

        [1] Kopel DB. The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? New York: Prometheus Press. 1992.
        [2] Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.
        [3] Suter EA. ‘Guns in the Medical Literature – A Failure of Peer Review.’ Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48.
        [4] Suter EA, Waters WC, Murray GB et al. ‘Violence in America – Effective Solutions.’ Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. June 1995; 84: 253-63.
        [5] Kleck G and Gertz M. Armed Resistance to Crime: the Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Summer 1995: forthcoming.” [not yet available on line]

        Sounds like a thorough reasoning of why Kellermann’s study was flawed, doesn’t it?

        I believe this is the full critique. Here are a couple of paragraphs.

        Both the case studies and control groups in this study were socially and demographically unrepresentative of the areas studied or of the nation as a whole. The groups had exceptionally high incidence of social dysfunction and instability. For example, 52.7% of case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 24.8% had alcohol-related problems, 31.3% had a household history of illicit drug abuse, 31.8% had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, 17.3% had a family member hurt so severely in a family fight that medical attention was required. Both the case studies and control groups in this study had very high incidence of financial instability. For example, both case subject and control heads of household had a median Hollingshead socioeconomic score of 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest level of socioeconomic status). These are factors that would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence, including homicide. The subjects and controls did not even reflect the racial profile of the studied counties; 62% of the subjects were Black compared with 25% of the overall population of the three studied counties.

        The unrepresentative nature of the case and control groups undercut the authors’ attempts to generalize from this study to the nation at large. The results cannot even be generalized to the counties studied because both the case and control groups did not even represent the ethnic or socioeconomic diversity of the counties studied. With so many complex variables, the authors should have used multiple logistic regression models, but, with their a priori bias, used only one logistic regression model.

        Interestingly, according to the authors’ own data, guns were next to last in importance of the “risk factors” studied. Alcohol, living alone, family violence, and renting one’s home held more risk than guns according to the authors’ calculations, yet the most important risks were barely mentioned in the publicity or the authors’ discussion. [See Graph 8: -- "Kellermann's Homicide Odds Ratios"] It appears that the authors were more concerned about generating a headline-grabbing “factoid,” exaggerating gun risk, than about accurately or honestly assessing the risks of the dysfunctional populations studied.

        If Kellermann’s study wasn’t flawed...WHY DID THE 43 times more likely become 2.7 times in the follow up? That is a serious “adjustment, isn’t it?

        Now, I’ve presented reasons why Kellermann’s study was flawed…can you present reasons why Kleck’s was flawed or would that hurt your feelings to be asked to support your position?

        • #68 by Cliff on June 25, 2009 - 8:12 am

          Kleck fully debunked here. Kleck has been SOOO fully debunked, he has refused to even TRY to defend it. He will not accept interviews and cannot find a job.

          Here is all the data you need to grind Kleck’s BULLSHIT into the ground.

          Done!

          Happy BobbyS?

          • #69 by Bob S. on June 25, 2009 - 8:42 am

            Cliff,

            Once again you reject reality and try to substitute your own.

            From your very own link at the first post that I got involved in(..has it been that long)

            Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known
            estimate of Kleck and Gertz
            , shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the
            estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.

            Far from disproving Kleck and Gertz….your citation supports it.

            It tries hard, as in this section, but it fails.

            For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes inwhich a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number
            of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8).

            It says that only a small fraction of women use firearms to defend themselves in the rape & robbery attempts…but it doesn’t say how many rape and robbery attempts are prevented because the attacker breaks off BEFORE a crime is committed by the women being ready to use or showing a firearm.

            I like how the authors of your citation tries to have it both ways

            Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of
            firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.
            For other purposes, the NSPOF is a reliable reference. Such information is vital to the evaluation of the ongoing debate over government regulation of
            gun transactions, possession, and use.

            I can’t believe they are saying we believe just about everything else in the NSPOF….but we are going to stick our fingers in our ears and act as if the Defensive Gun Uses are WRONG, even though everything else is right. That is funny, I don’t care who you are.

  38. #70 by Weer'd Beard on June 24, 2009 - 4:56 pm

    The Harvard study was also funded by The Joyce Foundation.

    Again you don’t see us citing studies paid for by the NRA, GOA, or JPFO…..nor would any of us cite a Global Climate Study funded by Shell Oil.

    So “Fact” is a big subjective when the studies cited are deeply refuted, and the author was being paid to come to a certain conclusion.

    Also while likely doctored using junk science (so the check would clear) many of your citations actually fly in the face of your cause.

    “48% of gun-owning households with children do NOT regularly make sure that guns are equipped with child safety locks or other trigger locks.”

    “59% of students in grades six through twelve know where to get a gun if they want one, and two thirds of these students say they can acquire a firearm within 24 hours.”

    Likely bullshit, but if in fact they were found true by independent view, it does show the futility of trigger locks and removing guns from homes, as youth gun deaths are so small. Couple that with deaths where the household LEGALLY owned the guns (ie no gang activites) the number drops down to foolishly low numbers

    I lived in central Maine for a number of years, there just about EVERY house had guns in it (sometimes just a few hunting guns, sometimes collections worth a small fortune) often these guns were stored unlocked and unloaded, the ammo boxes nearby. Many of these houses a few loaded or quickly loadable guns were around for home defense. I’ve never known of a kid killed by playing with a gun.

    I’ve known a LOT of kids who had full access to the guns, and were welcomed to grab a few, some ammo, and allowed to play in the back 40 shooting woodchucks or plinking cans and targets.

  39. #71 by Bob S. on June 24, 2009 - 5:29 pm

    Cliff,

    Maybe you can explain the contradiction to me

    Richard is asking why firearms are exempt from the Consumer Product Safety Act. An act that regulates consumer safety, right?

    So, if firearms should be regulated by the same agency that regulates swimming pool slides, bunk beds, etc….doesn’t that make them just like all the other things that cause death and injury?

    We have thoroughly established the fact that your ‘all things that cause death are like guns’ argument. Its tired

  40. #72 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 7:08 am

    “What some of us are saying is the misuse of guns outweighs their use.”

    And if I think that the misuse free speech rights of anti-gunners outweighs proper use I’m sure you’ll support “reasonable restrictions” of the free speech of you and your ilk. Right MikeB?

    Doesn’t matter if I have no proof of such a claim right? Such a claim has no more validity and should be considered total BS just like your claim I quoted above.

  41. #73 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 8:26 am

    52.7% of case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested. So basically his “study” was greatly skewed towards households with CRIMINALS in them. That might have something to do with his whacked out “findings.” Well that and excluding robberies, domestic abuse, and sexual assault from defensive gun uses.

    If you remove all the data that hurts your cause you can come up with almost any result. That’s why looking at funding, methodology, and raw data are so important. That’s why I put much more weight on actually raw data rather than “studies,” whether they’re conducted by kellermann or Kleck.

    It’s irrelevant anyway. Even if it is dangerous to have a gun in the home, it is the choice of the individual. All of you folks may simply choose not to keep a gun at home, but please stay the hell away from my guns and my choices.

  42. #74 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 8:29 am

    How much do you want to bet Cliff and others will continue to cite Kellermann as gospel?

  43. #75 by Cliff on June 25, 2009 - 8:32 am

    Mike W,

    Would you like to expound on the concept that the right of free speech is the same as “for the purpose for a well-regulated militia” as fully distorted by the perverted right-wing, brownshirt neocons on the SCOTUS bench?

    My advice? Don’t bother. Its way over your head.

  44. #76 by Cliff on June 25, 2009 - 8:37 am

    MikeW,

    So what? Sure as a bear shits in the woods, ya’ll will keep repeating the same desperate ignorant garbage forever.

    We are just more tolerant than others which, I might point out, is the only reason you are here instead of any of the other hundreds of anti-gun-freak websites.

    I’m sure they all booted your redneck asses long ago.

    I don’t boot you because I am building a monument to your stupidity.

  45. #77 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 8:59 am

    Look at sad little Cliff, throwing out personal insults because he can’t actually refute my argument.

    BTW – It would appear that my free speech comparison went right over your head.

  46. #78 by Cliff on June 25, 2009 - 9:07 am

    MikeW,

    I believe you are the one who refuses to address my request. I understood well your convenient equivocation. I don’t buy it, and I was giving you the courtesy of supporting your incredible assertion.

    May I assume the insults are getting to you since you point them out all the time? Truth hurts huh?

  47. #79 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 9:09 am

    Also, Cliff apparently speaks from a position of incredible ignorance, since ALL 9 JUSTICES (including the liberals) concluded that the 2A is an individual right in Heller

    It would appear Cliff is the one distorting reality and the facts. I can’t say I’m the least bit surprised.

    • #80 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 9:13 am

      mike w.:

      i think you need to go back and reread the Heller decision; assuming, that is, you read it in the first place.

  48. #81 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 9:12 am

    No, you may not assume that. I point them out because they make you look bad. I make a point to highlight ignorance, intolerance and bigotry, which anti-gunners tend to spew constantly.

    It is telling that your position is so intellectually deficient that you cannot defend it without consistently resorting to personal insults.

  49. #82 by Cliff on June 25, 2009 - 9:16 am

    James,

    Thanks for schoolin our moron friends. I have to sign off, battery dying. On Bus from WooodsHole with WiFi. Pretty cool.

  50. #83 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 9:21 am

    Yup. For someone who takes issue with “distorting reality and the facts,” mike w’s characterization of the Heller decision above is a real treat!

    All 9 justices, huh? If that is the level mike’s brain functions at, he should have all his guns taken away from him. Someone is bound to get hurt, real bad.

  51. #84 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 9:23 am

    James – And you might want to go back and read the ENTIRE decision, lest you make yourself look like a fool.

    The FIRST SENTENCE of the dissenting opinion states,

    The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

    To be sure, the right as Stevens envisions it is essentially worthless (he subjects it to a “reasonableness test,” the lowest level of judicial scrutiny) But he, and all 4 justices joining him did acknowledge it to be an individual right.

    Sorry to burst your bubble with the facts.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

    • #85 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 9:32 am

      Idiot! Yet again you play fast and loose with the facts, while pretending to be repulsed by the same. Go look up the definition of dissent. Your statement above is so outlandish, I refuse to further justify it with further response. Idiot!

  52. #86 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 9:41 am

    I know what a dissenting opinion is, but now I’m not sure I understand what your point was. Were you trying to say before that the MAJORITY OPINION didn’t say it was an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT?

    The facts are simple. Both the MAJORITY DECISION and the DISSENT concluded that the 2A is an individual right That means all 9 justices concluded, unanimously that the 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

    Do you dispute this?

    • #87 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 9:51 am

      Of course I dispute this. Read the dissent, mike w, and you will dispute it, too. Read the dissent, not just the first sentence. Again, your statement above is so incorrect and outlandish it does not even dignify a response.

      • #88 by Bob S. on June 25, 2009 - 10:14 am

        James,

        Instead of just telling us we are wrong…why don’t you cite something from the DISSENT that shows the Justices NOT agreeing that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual one.

        That way every can read see if your statements are supported by facts.

        Mike W. presented evidence from the dissent that really, really, really seems to show that the 4 dissenting justices consider the 2nd amendment to be an individual right….just one they don’t have to pay attention to.

        So, how about it, can you present any proof to back up what you are bleating about?

  53. #89 by jdberger on June 25, 2009 - 10:03 am

    Justice Stevens linguistic acrobatics in attempting to explain that rights of “people” doesn’t mean individual rights but rights held by individuals only as they are part of a group are hysterical.

    The Court also overlooks the significance of the way the Framers used the phrase “the people” in these constitutional provisions. In the First Amendment , no words define the class of individuals entitled to speak, to publish, or to worship; in that Amendment it is only the right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, that is described as a right of “the people.” These rights contemplate collective action. While the right peaceably to assemble protects the individual rights of those persons participating in the assembly, its concern is with action engaged in by members of a group, rather than any single individual. Likewise, although the act of petitioning the Government is a right that can be exercised by individuals, it is primarily collective in nature. For if they are to be effective, petitions must involve groups of individuals acting in concert.

    You have to wonder if he was really being serious when he penned this one…

  54. #90 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 10:26 am

    Ok then Mr Farmer, you tell me what this means to you.

    The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals

    So Stevens starts off the dissent by specifically dismissing the “collective rights” theory of the 2A

    • #91 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 10:42 am

      mike and bob:

      As I said before, read the dissent. If, as you suggest, the dissenting justices agree the 2nd Amend provides an unchecked or qualified individual right to keep and bear arms, the decision would have been 9-0 and not 5-4. Sometimes you folks really amaze me with your inability to comprehend what you read.

      • #92 by Bob S. on June 25, 2009 - 10:48 am

        James,

        If you and I agree that a person becomes a legal adult in their teen years, we both agree on that point, correct?

        If you say that a person becomes an adult at 17 and I say 18…we dissent on the exact age but not the fact it happens as a teen.

        I’m trying to use small words and analogy so this will make sense to you.

        All 9 justices agree that it is an individual right….


        Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals

        The 4 dissenting Justices disagree on whether or not the government can infringe upon that right and how far.

        If you can show any evidence, any statements, any words in Justices Stevens dissent that contradicts that view, please do so now.

        Again…when asked to present evidence or proof; You bleat and bleat and bleat like a sheep hoping that people won’t notice any lack of supporting evidence.

  55. #93 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 10:55 am

    As I said, Bob, read the dissent. Your perceived need for condescension in your response suggests that you have not undertaken that exercise. Read it, and then come back for sensible discussion.

  56. #94 by Bob S. on June 25, 2009 - 11:06 am

    James,

    Once again you do not support your position but simply attack the person. Cliff would be proud of you, young padawan.

    Again…if you think the 4 dissenting justices did not support the idea of an individual right, it should be easy for you to show that from the dissent, right?

    I have read the decision, multiple times. Apparently you haven’t undertaken it or the dreaded 1Utah syndrome of reading comprehension failure is extremely advanced in your case.

    And it isn’t a perceived need for condescension…I feel it is an appropriate reply to someone that will not support his statements with facts.

    When you act as a member of the flock of sheep, expect to be called on it. Simply prove, using words from the dissent that Justice Stevens and the other 3 did not agree it was an individual right…..or bleat some more about how we haven’t read it.

  57. #95 by mikeb302000 on June 25, 2009 - 11:07 am

    Bob S., Your man who debunks Kellerman is about as unbiased as Fox News, as evidenced by his comment, “He pretends to study the protective uses of guns.” That kind of nasty sarcasm betrays his personal bias, don’t you think?

    • #96 by Bob S. on June 25, 2009 - 11:21 am

      MikeB,

      Just because he is scornful of Kellermann’s work doesn’t make him biased.

      Can you, like we have for Kellermann, that his research was funded by one side or other on the subject?

      Instead of just saying that you “feel” that Suter is biased….present something to back up your opinion.

      If you can.

  58. #97 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 11:34 am

    James has nothing with which to support his position. He is clearly either being intentionally dishonest, or he has absolutely no experience whatsoever with Constitutional Law.

    His repeating of the phrase “read the dissent” doesn’t add validity to his claim or change the fact that he’s flat out wrong. I read it, I cited it here, and it unequivocably states that all 4 dissenting justices understood the 2A to be an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. The majority opinion also comes to that same conclusion.

    Surely if he were convinced he’s right he might CITE EVIDENCE to back up his claims, as I did when he *foolishly* claimed I was wrong.

  59. #98 by Weer'd Beard on June 25, 2009 - 12:07 pm

    I’m curious if James has read the dissent. I certainly have, and by his constant repetition of untrue information I must question his literacy or if he has read it at all.

    Or like MikeB, he’s being intentionally dishonest. You’ll note that MikeB has not, nor will ever support any of his claims. He knows there is no support for them, so he pretends they don’t exist.

  60. #99 by jdberger on June 25, 2009 - 12:08 pm

    Mikeb.

    Kellerman has debunked Kellerman.

    Note the differences between studies.

    Honestly you’d be better off quoting Bellisieles.

  61. #100 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 12:26 pm

    Weer’d. James is doing what’s typical of anti-gunners. He thinks that because he says it, and believes it, then it MUST be true, reality be damned.

    And yes, Kellerman debunked his own study.

  62. #101 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 12:42 pm

    Ok, gun-trolls, I’ll bite. An individual right to do what? Just what individual right do all 9 justices agree exists per the 2nd Amend? Your gun-nuttiness is clouding your reading comprehension, I’ll say again, if you walk away from reading Heller understanding that a 5-4 decision somehow equates to a unanimous decision.

    • #102 by Bob S. on June 25, 2009 - 12:59 pm

      James,

      NO ONE said it was a unanimous decision on anything other than the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

      Maybe this will help…from Stevens’ dissent


      But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right

      Stevens and the dissenting judges say basically –yes, it is an individual right to keep and bear arms, but we are going to ignore that and it makes sense for D.C ban firearms anyways.

      See this statement for evidence of my view point

      Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case.

      See, this is what reading, and re-reading the decision will do….it will allow a person to find EVIDENCE to back up a position.

  63. #103 by jdberger on June 25, 2009 - 12:46 pm

    But you didn’t say anything, James. As usual, you just asked a bunch of questions.

    You fail to state your position.

  64. #104 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 12:50 pm

    not true, jd. You tell me just what you think all nine justices agree upon in Heller. Prove to me that 5-4 decision actually is, in substance, a 9-0 decision when you read the dissent. Show me that your gun-nuttiness has, in fact, not clouded you brain.

  65. #105 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 1:28 pm

    Prove to me that 5-4 decision actually is, in substance, a 9-0 decision when you read the dissent

    How dense can you be!? NO ONE HERE HAS SAID THAT IT WAS A 9-0 DECISION.

    What we said was that all 9 justices UNANIMOUSLY rejected the “collective rights” theory and stated that the 2A is in fact an individual right.

    Therefore, on the issue of whether or not the 2A is an individual right the SCOTUS unanimously said that it was. Why is that so hard to understand?

  66. #106 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 1:32 pm

    yes, it is an individual right to keep and bear arms, but we are going to ignore that and it makes sense for D.C ban firearms anyways.

    Exactly, they took the insane position that, while the 2A is an individual right, a complete ban on firearms in DC is “reasonable” and thus not an infringement of that right. So basically they said, it’s an individual right that can be completely ignored by the government.

  67. #107 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 1:55 pm

    See, this is where your gun-nuttiness clouds your brains. Stevens says the 2nd Amend. provides an individual right, but he does not define that right to the extent you gun-nuts says he does. In fact, if you will take the time to read the dissent (which I still believe not one of you has done), then you will find Stevens not once says the amendment provides an unqualified individual right to keep and bear arms. It was a 5-4 decision, folks, not a 9-0 decision.

    • #108 by Bob S. on June 25, 2009 - 2:09 pm

      James,

      Show me any place where we say to what extent he does define it.

      You are making up stuff out of unicorn farts and fairy tales. We’ve stated repeatedly that all 9 justices say it is an individual right

      You are right, Stevens says…by the way so did Scalia that the right isn’t an unqualified right. Of course, in society NO right is unqualified. That is why we have laws against murder, fraud, libel, slander, robbery, etc. Right?

      What confuses me about the militia argument is the fact that not everyone had to be a member of the militia…nor could be a member right? 17 to 45 was one of the most common restrictions.

      So, what happened to the right of the people who turned 46? Did they loose the right to keep and bear arms? Nope. Did men suddenly gain the right to keep and bear arms at 17….forgetting all the history and evidence that kids younger than that hunted for food often.

      See the militia ONLY argument doesn’t hold up when people look at the reality.

      Individuals made up the militia, so without an individual right to keep and bear arms APART from the militia no one who wasn’t already a militia member could legally buy a firearm?
      How much sense does that make?
      Does it conform with the statements and views at the time…NOPE. Read the words of the people who wrote not only the U.S Constitution but the state Constitutions.

      • #109 by Richard Warnick on June 25, 2009 - 3:37 pm

        Bob S.–

        Here again you are relying on binary logic. I can do something without claiming a constitutional right to do it. In fact, I do lots of things that are never mentioned in the Constitution at all, like driving an automobile.

  68. #110 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 2:12 pm

    Earth to Bob.

    The sky is blue today in some parts of the world. I am sure all 9 of the justices will agree on that, too.

    What the heck is your point?

  69. #111 by .45 on June 25, 2009 - 2:51 pm

    This is ridiculous, for most State militias of the time of writing of the constitution, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire to be sure, you were required to provide your own gun.

    The gun was personal, and the militia captains required that you bring YOUR OWN gun to drill, as they had none. This historical context of the 2nd ignored is laughable. The personal right to bear and use arms for self defense is implied.

    The personal right to bear arms precedes the formation of any militia. No one could restrict that, and in the context the language of the 2nd cannot get any clearer, it is only fogged by those that wish guns didn’t exist.

    Which is never going to happen.

    • #112 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 2:57 pm

      glenn:

      Most of the founding fathers owned slaves, too, and considered women chattel property.

      What is your point?

  70. #113 by .45 on June 25, 2009 - 3:11 pm

    What is yours?

    Stick with the idea that you had to bring your own gun to the party as a matter of historical fact, and then try to work your BS from there.

    Slavery was banned locally in 1773 on the island of Nantucket, many “slaves” in the north were freed upon indenture’s end, certainly no perfect world. Be advised that slavery in Britain was not eliminated until 1833, 60 years later. Slavery is a legacy of crown rule of the colonies, and many didn’t want it.

    No one for even one second in the time period, as is the case now, questioned the people’s rights to own and use weapons for self defense but the tyrants that attempted to squelch the Revolution. Those would be crown tories, and their crown masters.

    No Sunny Jim, the personal right to own and use guns is here to stay in America.

    • #114 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 3:21 pm

      glenn:

      You are the one resorting to colonial times and saying that modern America should be governed using laws then existing and reasonable at the time. I merely pointed out that slavery was legal and women were treated as chattel property at the same time. A kind of sauce for the gander argument to point out the ridiculousness in your statement.

      PS. As you know perfectly well, I own more guns than most of the gun-nuts on this website. Where have I ever advocated the personal right to own a gun should not be here to stay in America?

  71. #115 by jdberger on June 25, 2009 - 5:02 pm

    #20 by jdberger – June 25th, 2009 at 12:46

    But you didn’t say anything, James. As usual, you just asked a bunch of questions.

    You fail to state your position.

    Reply Quote #21 by James Farmer – June 25th, 2009 at 12:50

    not true, jd. You tell me just what you think all nine justices agree upon in Heller. Prove to me that 5-4 decision actually is, in substance, a 9-0 decision when you read the dissent. Show me that your gun-nuttiness has, in fact, not clouded you brain.

    Good stuff, Jim. You continue to answer questions with questions. You refuse to bolster your arguments, you only poke holes in the arguments of others.

    It’s an interesting debate tactic. It’s exactly the one used by Justice Stevens.

    Unfortunately, it only tells us what isn’t – not what is. And that’s where it f(and your argument) fail.

  72. #116 by jdberger on June 25, 2009 - 5:02 pm

    As you know perfectly well, I own more guns than most of the gun-nuts on this website. Where have I ever advocated the personal right to own a gun should not be here to stay in America?

    That seems like an interesting contest, Jim.

    • #117 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 5:20 pm

      Well. Give me some substance and I will respond in kind. Stating the justices agree 9-0 in Heller is far from substance – it is down right disingenuous crap.

  73. #118 by .45 on June 25, 2009 - 5:17 pm

    For the record I am not Glen, though he must be rather intelligent to be able to engender such targeting and labeling of logical thought. Speaks volumes.

    Meanwhile the personal right to own and use weapons of the 2nd is part of the BOR, ending slavery is now an amendment included in our constitution. Just as we will not return to slavery and remain America, we will not disarm the law abiding public and remain America either.

    Jim, your straw man in on wheels, pushing it is easy, but no one takes it seriously. Stick with the subject, slavery was a contentious issue from the formation of the nation, while the personal right to own and use a weapon in self defense, in most cases a gun, was never an issue. This is an inarguable historical fact, and sets the precedent of why we have the personal right to possess and own lethal weapons.

    “Resorting” to colonial times, Jim, all of our law is based on precedence, it is hardly resorting to the constitution’s intent to look back upon the history. Are you really a lawyer? Go into politics, best place for this kind of nonsense.

  74. #119 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 8:04 pm

    James Farmer :
    Ok, gun-trolls, I’ll bite. An individual right to do what? Just what individual right do all 9 justices agree exists per the 2nd Amend? Your gun-nuttiness is clouding your reading comprehension, I’ll say again, if you walk away from reading Heller understanding that a 5-4 decision somehow equates to a unanimous decision.

    How many ways can I say this. I, nor anyone else here claimed that all 9 agreed on the SCOPE of the individual right (or for that matter whether DC violated it, which is why it was 5-4) only that the right protected by the 2A is an individual right.

    All 9 unanimously concluded that the right protected was INDIVIDUAL. to say otherwise is pure intellectual dishonesty.

    • #120 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 8:47 pm

      mike:

      As I suggested to Bob previously, I am certain that all 9 justices would agree also that the sky somewhere in the world is blue today. So what? Agreeing that the 2nd Amend. conveys an individual right (w/o specifying that right) is like saying the sky is blue during daytime. You have told me nothing.

  75. #121 by .45 on June 25, 2009 - 9:24 pm

    A hundred million personal gun owners are proof enough that the individual right to own and use firearms is going to remain. Turning that back may be possible in Australia, but it sure won’t be here.

    Short of criminalizing the law abiding there can be no change. Should that happen is about when the wheels will come off this Republic, if they aren’t whistling by our moving window already.

    This discussion is largely moot, for if the 2nd is made void, how and who is going to enforce any of the laws? Will they do it with all the blistering effect that the government currently manages? Look at anything run by government, and know for certain there is very little to fear. We the People have all the de facto power, all that is required is a little solidarity, and the government will come under public oversight.

    Just waiting on the day the bulk of the people have had enough of either brand of the same old, same old.

  76. #122 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 9:27 pm

    So you are now conceding that they did in fact agree that it’s an individual right? Hmm, calling us disingenuous and calling me an “idiot” twice, accusing me of “playing fast and loose with the facts” when I was right all along. Why am I not surprised?

    You’re now trying to back away from your statement and move the goal posts. You said in response to my below statement.

    That means all 9 justices concluded, unanimously that the 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

    Do you dispute this?

    Yes, I dispute this (comment #5) So you based your disputing of my facts on absolutely nothing of substance. It would appear that you are the one who has told us nothing. Well nothing other than that you will throw out personal attacks when you clearly have no substantive argument.

  77. #123 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 9:38 pm

    Give it a rest, mike. Your argument is still without substance. As i said, stating that the 9 justices agree that the 2nd A. provides an individual right w/o specifying that right is blowing hot air. You have done nothing today but blow hot air, and you are still doing it.

    Go back to sleep!

  78. #124 by mike w. on June 25, 2009 - 9:59 pm

    You have been proven wrong based upon CITED EVIDENCE. Your ORIGINAL statement is false and has been proven as such.

    Go ahead, defend the indefensible.

    • #125 by James Farmer on June 25, 2009 - 10:06 pm

      Sorry mike. Your nothingburger ego is overinflating. Your previous comments were devoid of substance as indicated. Do yourself a favor and go back to sleep.

  79. #126 by .45 on June 25, 2009 - 10:03 pm

    I would have to say that the substance of mike’s argument is lying in the homes all over the country. Some locked and loaded, some locked up and unloaded. That is the reality of the personal right.

    If it isn’t a right, how is it that guns are ubiquitous in many American homes? Why is the attempt to defy the open reality even being made? Are you trying to say that all these 230 plus years gun owners have been all wrong, that their guns are not really theirs to have? Such a stance really makes a person look rather foolish.

  80. #127 by mike w. on June 26, 2009 - 7:49 am

    Ok, why just ignore all evidence that might conflict with what you BELIEVE. Never mind that the 1st sentence of the dissent clearly stated that the 2A protects an individual right.

    Never mind that all 9 justices plainly agreed that it is an individual right. James BELIEVES that there was no such unanimous agreement, and we all know that for anti-gunners BELIEF will always trump evidence.

    • #128 by James Farmer on June 26, 2009 - 11:46 am

      mike:

      I disagree that the first sentence of the dissent states what you interpret it as stating. Reproduced below is the first paragraph for your convenience:

      The question presented by this case is not whether theSecond Amendment protects a “collective right” or an“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

      By the way, an individual shareholder of a corporation can sue as an individual on behalf of the corporation. Doesn’t mean the individual owns the corporation, now, does it?

  81. #129 by mike w. on June 26, 2009 - 12:09 pm

    Actually as an individual shareholder he edoes own a portion of the corporation.

    • #130 by James Farmer on June 26, 2009 - 1:04 pm

      And nowhere did I state otherwise.

      • #131 by Bob S. on June 26, 2009 - 3:18 pm

        James,

        Maybe reframing the debate will help.

        The Supreme Court has held that the right to assemble is an individual right, correct?

        Now, an “assembly” can only take place if two or more people are involved, right?

        But if individuals — single people –do not have a right to join an assembly; then how can the full extent of the right be exercise?

        Think about the following situation, a single person wants to get a group of people together so he uses his 1st amendment right to free speech and press to make an announcement. The assembly will take place on private property so no permits are needed.

        If the right to assemble is not an individual right, can the organizer be prevented from exercising his right to show up?
        Can any person be prevented from exercising their rights to show up?

        If no one at all but the organizer shows up, didn’t he exercise his right to assemble?

        Are you following the argument?

        In terms of the 2nd amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. I think you agree with that, right?

        The current laws govern the use- what is legal and illegal– but the SCOTUS decision stated that a individual can own a firearm even if the individual isn’t a member of a militia (or assembly) .

        Since case before the court was narrowly tailored and argued to get that Individual Right on record, the extent of government regulation wasn’t fully explored.

        What was clearly stated is that completely banning handguns is unconstitutional. That requiring the firearms to be stored in a condition that makes them useless for self defense is unconstitutional.

        Stevens and the other 3 dissenters simply stated what I said…but then tried to say that the government can effectively neutralize the right to keep and bear arms for individuals, even if it is an individual right.

        His reasoning in that decision is some of the most tortured logic I’ve read in a long time.

        Do you agree or disagree with my analogy and analysis?

  82. #132 by cav on June 26, 2009 - 10:59 pm

    Bob S has gotten to Paul Craig Roberts.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06262009.html

    Only one counterpoint I’ve yet to hear: Full page NRA ads offering civilian versions of weapons used by “America’s elite warriors” in US Special Operations Command, SWAT, and by covert agents “who work in a dark world most of us can’t even understand,” are likely to scare the pants off people who are afraid of guns.

    • #133 by Bob S. on June 27, 2009 - 5:34 am

      Cav,

      Had never read Paul Craig Roberts, but it is nice to see that other people have reached the same conclusions.
      Note the date of the article
      Weekend Edition
      June 26-28, 2009

      Maybe I should see if Roberts has been reading my work :>

      Those ideas are not unique to Roberts or myself, he just says them better than I can. Thanks for a great read.

      I’ll pull some sections out and post them…for those that won’t click over to a pro-rights viewpoint.

      New York state senator Timothy Sullivan, a corrupt Tammany Hall politician, represented New York’s Red Hook district. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. In order to protect themselves and their property, travelers armed themselves. This raised the risk of, and reduced the profit from, robbery. Sullivan’s outlaw constituents demanded that Sullivan introduce a law that would prohibit concealed carry of pistols, blackjacks, and daggers, thus reducing the risk to robbers from armed victims.

      The criminals, of course, were already breaking the law and had no intention of being deterred by the Sullivan Act from their business activity of armed robbery. Thus, the effect of the Sullivan Act was precisely what the criminals intended. It made their life of crime easier.

      It seems that I’ve heard advice and ideas from the anti-freedom anti-firearm crowd here. “Don’t fight back against a rapist/home invasion, run away” Make their job easier

      “Don’t fight back against a mugger, just give them what they want.”

      “Store keepers shouldn’t be armed, criminals might get hurt when they are robbing the place, it is only money, give it to them”.

      Why would we want to make it easier for criminals to be criminals?

      Consider the propagandistic term, “gun violence,” popularized by gun control advocates. This is a form of reification by which inanimate objects are imbued with the ability to act and to commit violence. Guns, of course, cannot be violent in themselves. Violence comes from people who use guns and a variety of other weapons, including fists, to commit violence.

      According to some on this board, simple assualt – an attack with fist or feet — shouldn’t be counted as part of violent crime. How does that make sense?

      In fact, the National MCH Center for Child Death Review, an organization that monitors causes of child deaths, reports that seven times more children die from drowning and five times more from suffocation than from firearm accidents. Yet we don’t hear of “drowning violence,” “swimming pool violence,” “bathtub violence,” or “suffocation violence.”

      The claim over and over again is that “firearms aren’t like other things that cause deaths”….yet these same people want to let the CPSC regulate firearms as if they are like anything else that causes death. Never mind the regulations in existence.
      So, which is it? Are firearms like other things that cause death (in which case comparisons are valid) or are they not like other things that cause death (in which case it makes sense to have an agency –ATF– regulate them instead of the CPSC)?

      In 2006 violence-related firearm deaths of eighteen year olds and under totaled 2,191. A large percentage of these deaths appear to be teenagers fighting over drug turf.

      According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, drugs are “one of the main factors leading to the total number of all homicides. . . . murders related to narcotics still rank as the fourth most documented murder circumstance out of 24 possible categories.”

      Change or enforce the drug laws, reduce the violence without affecting innocent people’s rights.

      In the US, shooting is a hand-eye coordination sport. It is likely that 99% of all ammunition is fired at paper targets, metal silhouettes, or clay and plastic discs. It is a sport for amateur physicists who are interested in ballistics and who experiment with different combinations of powder and bullet seeking the most accurate for their rifle or pistol. Few of these shooters hunt as their interest in shooting is unrelated to killing.

      Thanks again Cav…good article

    • #134 by Weer'd Beard on June 27, 2009 - 5:36 am

      Thankfully we can show them what the difference between a civilian legal, and a military weapon is.

      Hell everybody should saddle up an M16 and target shoot on full-auto. You’ll see that generally outside of a mounted LMG and bigger, full-auto really sucks, and just means lots of reloading.

      If I had to pick ANY gun to go into battle with, personally I’d choose an AR-10 as you can buy from any gun shop with no special paperwork. Lightweight, proven design, great ergonomics, great accuracy, and a full-power cartridge.

      I’d trust something like that a LOT more to save my life, and the life of my family from large amounts of hostiles over the M4 Carbine used by our special forces.

      http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn75-e.htm

      This interests me too. But Full Auto is only controllable with minor cartridges, or in VERY heavy guns, meanwhile a major cartridge will have much more reliable stopping power over longer ranges, and can be VERY accurate in semi-auto-only, but still allow for rapid follow-up shots.

      This is why Deer hunters turn to guns like this.

  83. #135 by .45 on June 27, 2009 - 5:36 am

    No one got to Roberts, he is simply using common sense. Combine that with the reality that a disarmed populace is the groundwork for a burgeoning tyranny in any time in history, and it begs the question of what else are Statists afraid of?

    The cat is out of the bag concerning the real motives of gun grabbers, and they will have to be fought with no quarter. The right to bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights, and we are not losing any of them. Period. No matter the gobbledy goop coming from gun control advocates.

  84. #136 by Becky Stauffer on June 27, 2009 - 7:36 am

    No one got to Roberts, he is simply using common sense.

    Really? It looks to me more like a regurgitation of every gunloving talking point I’ve ever heard. Did he miss any?

  85. #137 by Richard Warnick on June 27, 2009 - 9:46 am

    From this morning’s Salt Lake Tribune:

    Jessica Miller was finishing a sociology paper Friday afternoon when a shotgun blast tore through her apartment wall a few yards away.

    She and a maintenance man fixing a door at her unit hit the floor. They ran for the bathroom, and a second shot shattered a window.

    “My heart just stopped. I didn’t make a sound,” the 21-year-old University of Utah student said. “I was so scared.”

    The shooter was a neighbor, George D. Huntzinger, 64, who was firing indiscriminately with a shotgun from his third-floor balcony in the Cottonwood Apartments…

    • #138 by Bob S. on June 27, 2009 - 10:47 am

      Huntzinger’s motives weren’t clear, but he was going through a divorce, said Salt Lake County sheriff’s Lt. Don Hutson. He had lived in the apartment about a month

      Obviously he was a victim of the legal system that places too much stress on people. We need to immediately restrict divorce proceedings, right?

  86. #139 by .45 on June 27, 2009 - 10:19 am

    Have you ever read any of his writings Becky? He merely comments that in the context of a group of people in government that is violating it’s oath to uphold and defend the constitution, the public has every right to be concerned and maintain their right to bear arms.

    Obviously it favors gun rights, the right to own and bear arms makes nothing but common sense. If you wish to be unarmed that is a decision you can make for yourself, but you cannot make that decision for anyone else. Thank God for the 2nd amendment and the personal right to bear arms.

    This is an issue I know the gun rights side will win, I mean all you need do is look to the armed criminal all over the nation to know the value of being armed. Criminals won’t disarm, and neither will law abiding people, unless it is willingly.

    “The shooter was a neighbor, George D. Huntzinger, 64, who was firing indiscriminately with a shotgun from his third-floor balcony in the Cottonwood Apartments…”

    Was he arrested for misuse of a weapon, unlawful gun discharge, etc, etc., no he was killed, this is the country we live in, you can be disarmed if you wish. You can well see how effective any more laws added to the existing laws will be.

    • #140 by Richard Warnick on June 27, 2009 - 11:09 am

      Um, Huntzinger was shooting at the police. They tried to talk to him, but he was intent on “suicide by cop,” as they call it in Utah. Increasingly common.

    • #141 by James Farmer on June 27, 2009 - 12:23 pm

      Thank God for the 2nd amendment and the personal right to bear arms.

      I assume this statement was made merely to incite responsive commentary. OK, then, I’ll bite: this is the most stupid statement made yet on this entire thread.

  87. #142 by .45 on June 27, 2009 - 11:43 am

    What is interesting is how willing the cops in this country are to be the executioner. I’m sure the legal implications here in the US give them no choice.
    If they do not kill him for not complying, and the criminal hurts someone else, then they the police become responsible for not acting.

    I am reminded of how most criminals are never given the time to consider their path before they are shot dead. The reactive nature of our police.

    Increasingly common here, becoming ever more uncommon in civilized nations. Yet here living in such a zoo, many would disarm the law abiding.

    In Europe the criminals are often apprehended at their local bar, a park, grocer, someplace where the day to day occurs, of course here, as crazy as it gets, if there was resistance, the firefight in a public place would commence.

    Comes from watching too much television crime drama I think.

    Once you get away from the mistaken impression that the US is a civilized place. arming oneself being the right that it is, has purpose.

  88. #143 by .45 on June 27, 2009 - 1:26 pm

    Well thank your Creator then, and the fine gentlemen that had guns, used them, made them, and destroyed the crown with them, and then ensconced the personal right to bear arms into the US constitution..

    Stupid in your opinion, which does not count for much seeing as how many guns there are, and how many people use them for a multiplicity of reasons. We can thank who we like for the 2nd, free country. By order of the 1st.

    Oh yeah, you ought to thank God for the litigious nature of the country as well. What you can’t rectify with law Jim, is generally rectified with firearms. Engineer that.

    • #144 by James Farmer on June 27, 2009 - 1:43 pm

      glenn:

      Your suggestion that God or the Creator provided man the right to bear arms is just silly; actually no, not silly, just plain stupid.

      • #145 by Bob S. on June 27, 2009 - 2:47 pm

        James,

        Call it a God given right or call it a right naturally inherent right…you get the freedom to choose.

        Aren’t you being awfully intolerant of those who’s religious beliefs are not your own?

        Not very liberal of you, is it?

      • #146 by mike w. on June 27, 2009 - 9:00 pm

        The right to bear arms is a corollary to the natural right to self-defense, so Glenn is actually correct.

  89. #147 by .45 on June 27, 2009 - 2:40 pm

    Have I mentioned that I am not Glenn?

    Another gem from the well spring of possibly the most over-rated intellect I have ever met.

    Could you perhaps elaborate? See, if you believe in God, it follows to a living man, that which helps preserve you, can be attributed to God. Weapon good, kill mindless toothy beast, thank God, and so on. Really simple. Stupid? Stupid is what a individual does.

    Believing in yourself is one thing, the knowledge that you may be “blessed” or “lucky” has a way of transmuting into a belief of a watchful entity. Only the megalomaniac believes that all that has happened to themselves in life is due to their own actions.

    My idea is that God or not, the pineal gland(through which all thoughts concerning divinity pass apparently) has a purpose. The diminishing of belief in a creator coincides with physical ease of life.

    Consider that the “cave” was rather awful, plenty of beasts outside waiting to eat you, and your young, the rain, the cold, the heat, the consumptive diseases, age, and infirmity…in short believing in an afterlife with some cool deity who made you, that will make it all better is a survival mechanism. Keeps those of the race not completely hardcore looking forward, in spite of the rain.

    Next comes alcohol, I need not explain that I hope.

  90. #148 by .45 on June 27, 2009 - 2:43 pm

    You do believe in alcohol, do you not Jim?

    God (the Creator, Supreme Being, etc.etc.) has fewer hangover days, seriously.

  91. #149 by Becky Stauffer on June 27, 2009 - 5:41 pm

    Glenn at #55, I read the linked article.

    Glenn again, at #58,

    how willing the cops in this country are to be the executioner.

    I’m impressed with how willing concealed carriers are to be the same thing. I’ve heard a lot of rhetoric on this thread about shooting, shooting to kill, shoot first ask questions later. Remember the Burger King discussion among others? You’ll even jump to my defense when your own life isn’t threatened–even if I don’t want anyone shooting on my behalf.

    UPDATE: I said thread but meant to say this blog

    • #150 by Bob S. on June 27, 2009 - 9:25 pm

      Becky,

      The rhetoric you talk about is us simply stating what we are willing and ready to do IF THERE IS A CRIMINAL ATTACK ON US or a CRIME IN PROGRESS.

      Now, wouldn’ t be willing do what it takes to stop someone from hurting your family?
      There is no difference between us in that regards.

      You’ll even jump to my defense when your own life isn’t threatened–even if I don’t want anyone shooting on my behalf.

      And like the criminals aren’t wearing signs saying “Rapist only Non-murdering criminal” or “Robbery and Simple Assault Criminal” or “Aggravated Assault but will probably stop before you are dead Criminal” You don’t wear a sign do you?

      You don’t have a sign in front of your house stating you don’t want armed people coming to save you or stopping a crime, do you?

      You dont walk around with a sign saying “If you see me being raped, don’t shoot the rapist” do you?

      The citizen at Burger King was trying and DID stop a felony crime in progress. The citizen placed his life in jeopardy not for everyone less but for himself because he knows that criminals can and have tried to shoot all the witnesses.

      The citizen at Burger King tried to stop a crime because that is what citizens are supposed to do….not run away and surrender to the thugs.

      On this blog,I don’t know of a single case where a gun rights advocate has ever stated anything other than a willingness to follow the law completely.

      On this blog, I don’t know of a single case where a concealed carry holder or lawful gun owner hasn’t stated that it is our greatest desire to NEVER HAVE TO USE our firearms in defense of ourselves or others. Just because we are ready, doesn’t mean we are eager….that is a lie perpetuated by the pro-ignorance crowd on this blog.

      Please do all armed citizens a favor and wear the sings, post them in front of your house so we know not to bother shooting anyone attacking you.

      You might want to consider that the police might think you mean it.

  92. #151 by .45 on June 27, 2009 - 7:07 pm

    Wrong on both counts Becky, you can call me Glen, but I’m not.

    There is no link at #55, but you can think it’s there if you want to. Read up some more, you will find he is pretty progressive on economics and foreign policy. If you cannot see why the personal right to own and bear arms is intrinsic to America by now, you just never will, and that is ok. Until you make the attempt to change that right, and as you can see, you make yourself a target, and easy one. The arguments mean nothing with regards to the right. What would you say if someone told you could not express your faith? Understand that the 2nd means that much to some people, more even, or simply equal to the 1st. You are attempting to alter a right, this is the measure of a fascist.

    Not saying you are one, though it is fairly easy depending on the circles one runs in, to be one and not know it. Remember ALL Fascism in the last century began with “progressive” intentions. ALL of it!

    Bluntly put Becky, if the a legally concealed carry weapon comes out, it is very likely all other opportunities have been nixed by the offender, so at that point should your life, or others be in danger, it is basically a non incremental weapon, and that is exactly what it is meant to be. That is how the cops in the US roll, and that is how things in general have been going.

    I am concerned for all thinking I am Glen, there is little I can do to convince you, so that is fine.

  93. #152 by Becky Stauffer on June 27, 2009 - 8:51 pm

    Glenn,

    The link is in Cav’s comment at #49 and you responded at #51, so I assumed you had read it.

  94. #153 by Becky Stauffer on June 27, 2009 - 9:56 pm

    The citizen at Burger King tried to stop a crime because that is what citizens are supposed to do….

    So armed citizens believe they are required to perform acts of law enforcement? You prove my point, and it’s a little frightening. Sort of like the earlier thread where we discussed the recent incident of a robbery victim shooting at the fleeing robber. That’s just what worries me. Who decides what is self-defense, what is justified, and what is taking the law into your own hands? The line is pretty fuzzy. In the meantime, gun owners become more and more emboldened about what their role is in law enforcement.

    It’s called anarchy, Bob. Let the cops enforce the law.

    You’ll never convince me that the whole bunch of you don’t have an itchy trigger finger just waiting for the opportunity to prove you need your gun.

  95. #154 by Bob S. on June 27, 2009 - 10:55 pm

    Becky,

    Yep, and I’m surprised you find it scary. I says much about your world view that you don’t consider it a civic responsibility to stop crime.

    Until the great mass of the people shall be filled with the sense of responsibility for each other’s welfare, social justice can never be attained.
    Helen Keller

    If you saw someone about to assault your child, would you wait for the police or act?

    The definition of a law enforcement officer -

    An employee , the duties of whose position are primarily the prevention, investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws, including an employee engaged in this activity who is transferred to a supervisory or administrative position; or serving as a probation or pretrial services officer. 18 USC

    Cops are just average citizens we hire to take some of the burden from us…but the burden is still ours. The fact that you don’t see yourself having that civic responsibility is sad.

    I think of a hero as someone who understands the degree of responsibility that comes with his freedom.
    Bob Dylan

    Who decides what is self-defense, what is justified, and what is taking the law into your own hands?

    Okay, Civics Class 101. We have a system in place that decides what is self defense, what is justified, what is taking the law into your own hands. It is called the JUSTICE SYSTEM, say it with me one more time JUSTICE SYSTEM.

    The police investigate the facts of the crime AFTER THE FACT, the Prosecutors determine if there is sufficient reason or evidence for a trial, the Judge determines the legality of the charges, the Prosecutor and the Defense Attorney present the EVIDENCE and the facts of the case, the JURY determines if the actions are in accordance with the law.

    If I use lethal force to stop someone from killing me, I am not taking the law into my own hands. I am exercise my rights and responsibilities as set forth IN THE LAW. I highly recommend you spend a little time learning what the law says.

    http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE76/TITLE76.htm

    Try that to start.

    Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.
    Sigmund Freud

    Those of us who take responsibility for our own lives know what we can and can not do within the legal limits of the law. The fact that you are asking questions about what is permissible tells me you don’t know…and probably don’t want to know. It might affect your opinion with the truth..can’t have that can we?

    Let us all take more responsibility, not only for ourselves and our families but for our communities and our country.
    William J. Clinton

    The line is pretty fuzzy. In the meantime, gun owners become more and more emboldened about what their role is in law enforcement.

    There are a few situations where the line is fuzzy, most of them are very clear…if you know the law.

    Gun owners aren’t becoming more and more emboldened; we are just tired of being told we have to let the criminals have their way.

    Do you agree with Richard that a single woman in her own home should run away instead of arming herself and confronting a thug who is breaking into her house?

    That a person should depend on the mercy of a mugger not to hurt them after they give up their money?

    if you want to live like that, FINE. Have at it. Just understand that some of us do not want to, will not do it and resent, reject and refuse to allow you and others to try to make us. NO MORE.

    It’s called anarchy, Bob. Let the cops enforce the law.

    Again you show your ignorance on what anarchy is and what the law is. The cops can’t enforce the law all the time. Look out your window, do you see a cop?

    Check back in 15 minutes, will there be a cop there?

    Each and every person has a civic responsibility to prevent crime and stop criminals. That has been that way through out history.

    You’ll never convince me that the whole bunch of you don’t have an itchy trigger finger just waiting for the opportunity to prove you need your gun.

    That says more about your mental status then mine.

    There are 80 million gun owners in America. If what you say is true..dont’ you think there would be more shootings, more crime stopped, more dead criminals? 80,000,000 gun owners aren’t out to show off their “itchy trigger finger” they just want to be left alone. They want to be able to live without having to run away from those that threaten their families and themselves.

    Learn what the law says a person should do and is allowed to do to stop crime before you start talking about anarchy….because your words show you don’t have a clue.

  96. #155 by .45 on June 27, 2009 - 11:38 pm

    Excellent book to read, “Escape from Freedom”, by Eric Fromm.

    The basic tenet is what Freud alludes to, the twist is Fromm points out who can argue with Freedom if you do not have it? What results in free societies is that once freedom and liberty is achieved, it scares the hell out of some people and demands that effort be put out to maintain it. Freedom means they lose control of what they thought was their little corner of the world, as sorry as it may be.

    The subsequent dawning of the reality turns some into paragons of freedom, willing to do all that is necessary to maintain, expand, and broaden it. The other part of the group, wants their Mommy. In fact they want their Mommy so bad, they actively aid and assist in putting the yoke of tyranny back on their own necks.

    Becky? Tell me you would wait for the cops if someone was doing a family member, friend, hell a stranger on your street in?

    I am inspired by Bob Marley, who in his song “survivors” sings…

    “Some people can’t stand up strong, some people won’t wait that long.”

  97. #156 by Larry Bergan on June 28, 2009 - 12:01 am

    I guess I need to learn more about guns, because I don’t know what they sound like. The George D. Huntzinger incident was literally close to home for me.

    I get off work very late and was just stirring around in bed when I heard what sounded to me like Walmart was slamming big wooden pallets down. It wasn’t until helicopters were buzzing around before I went outside to see what all the commotion was. My neighbors were all in the upper apartments and had a perfect view of what was going on about a block away at exactly a right angle from our place.

    I was astonished to find out they were actually gunshots and one of my neighbors said that shrapnel was coming down on our carports.

    Obviously, this guy was committing “suicide by cop” because he told them the incident was going to end badly. The only thing I can figure, is that he was a religious man who thought he might go to hell if he killed himself, so why not have somebody else do it.

    Just because of the fact that he liked guns, I would surmise there is a good chance he was a right winger.

  98. #157 by Larry Bergan on June 28, 2009 - 12:13 am

    Am I going to go out and buy a gun?

    No.

    I can’t afford it, and I still don’t feel any more threatened by guns then I do Arab terrorists – right wingers, I’m not so sure. Time will tell if I’ve made a bad decision.

  99. #158 by Weer'd Beard on June 28, 2009 - 4:28 am

    Larry that’s a very candid statement, and I’m glad you shared it with us.

    One thing I might recommend is take the Utah CCW safety course. You won’t be obligated to own or buy a gun, nor will you be required to submit the application for the permit.

    What you will get is some basic safety training and information about guns and gun laws.

    The only thing you have to loose is the class fee (and maybe if you ask around, somebody might give you a deal if you promise to write up the class honestly on this site).

    Safety Training, you can never have too much of it.

    • #159 by James Farmer on June 28, 2009 - 9:24 am

      One thing I might recommend is take the Utah CCW safety course.

      That’s true, Larry, and if you are lucky, the fake bullets used to teach how to load and fire a weapon will be pink, rather than some drab green color. But don’t worry, many CCW courses do not require you actually fire a weapon to obtain the CCW.

      Just more Utah gun nonsense …

      • #160 by Bob S. on June 28, 2009 - 10:50 am

        Texas requires a live fire qualification. A course of fire and scoring that is very similar to what law enforcement officers must use to qualify for their license.

        Hmm, maybe the police arent all that more qualified on firearms then the average CHL holder.

        • #161 by James Farmer on June 28, 2009 - 12:18 pm

          This is what is required in Utah:

          (7) (a) General familiarity with the types of firearms to be concealed includes training in:
          (i) the safe loading, unloading, storage, and carrying of the types of firearms to be concealed; and
          (ii) current laws defining lawful use of a firearm by a private citizen, including lawful self-defense, use of force by a private citizen, including use of deadly force, transportation, and concealment.

          There is no requirement that you actually know how to shoot the firearm.

          • #162 by Bob S. on June 28, 2009 - 12:51 pm

            And is Utah having a problem with licensed people or is the problem with the gang banger and drug dealers?

            I would bet that by percentage there are more problems with drivers….who have passed an operation test than there are with CHL holders.

            Heck, I’d bet that CHL holders are having less problems then the Law enforcement officers so many people want to let handle everything. I’m not talking about the shootings of on duty law enforcement but the off duty cops.

  100. #163 by Weer'd Beard on June 28, 2009 - 6:03 am

  101. #164 by mike w. on June 28, 2009 - 10:29 am

    Actually James, I have a UT CCW, took the Utah CCW class, and I did have a live-fire session as part of the permit class.

  102. #165 by Larry Bergan on June 28, 2009 - 1:57 pm

    I told you guys/gals/ghosts, whatever, I can’t afford a gun or the bullets because Bush has destroyed our economy. I wouldn’t spend the money on a gun anyway because I don’t feel particularly threatened by anybody.

    Do you think there is a good chance this guy who shot up my neighborhood is a right winger just because of the fact that he was heavily armed?

    • #166 by Bob S. on June 28, 2009 - 2:38 pm

      Stereotype much Larry?

      Maybe if the government didn’t tax everything multiple times we could all afford firearms, eh?

      Maybe if the government didn’t outlaw low cost firearms (saturday night specials), we could afford firearms?

      Maybe if the government didn’t put a fee on the right to carry we could afford to buy the firearms and take the training classes easier.

      maybe it isn’t just BUSH,,,but the combined actions of Congress, the President(s), the bureaucracy, and people trying to tax people into compliance with their morality/ethics (sin taxes, pollution taxes, etc) we could afford firearms easier?

      I was hoping for a little more than Bush Derangement Syndrome from you.

      • #167 by Larry Bergan on June 28, 2009 - 10:44 pm

        Come on Bob, you know right wingers are into guns more then left wingers. It’s not rocket science. The shooter has a much higher chance of being from the right.

        • #168 by Larry Bergan on June 29, 2009 - 10:09 pm

          Bob?

          • #169 by Weer'd Beard on July 1, 2009 - 4:06 am

            More stereotyping. I know tons of Liberal Gun owners.

            Hey but we know that Liberals are more into ignorance and intolerance than Conservatives! ; p

  103. #170 by Becky Stauffer on June 28, 2009 - 3:36 pm

    I see where as of July 1, Nevada will no longer accept Utah CCW permits. Apparently Nevada requires live fire training. Utah doesn’t. In fact, you don’t need to do much of anything here — you don’t even have to come to Utah. The pro-gun forums are going nuts over this Nevada thing and they’re all saying they won’t go to Nevada. One guy said he won’t support any state that’s anti-second amendment.

    Have at me again, Bob S. Maybe you could quote Helen Keller again, that was a good one. I’m afraid I’ll be away for the evening and won’t be able to respond. But leave a message at the beep.

    • #171 by Bob S. on June 28, 2009 - 3:59 pm

      Becky,

      Can you show that Utah has a problem with the people licensed to carry concealed having more accidents, committing more crimes than the states that require the live fire?

      If not, why should the state require it?

    • #172 by mikeb302000 on June 28, 2009 - 11:08 pm

      Is it really possible that in Utah you can get a CCW license without live fire training? Even if the requirements are some minimum of live fire training it’s absurd. What kind of people are carrying these guns. I’ve heard from our commenters, Bob S. for one, that they train regularly at a shooting range, but conceivably there are guys carrying with little or no experience even firing the weapon. Honestly, I’m shocked and appalled. Is there no limit to the madness of exercising the 2nd amendment rights and defending ourselves from all the “danger”?

      • #173 by Weer'd Beard on June 29, 2009 - 2:11 am

        There are lots of states that have ZERO training requirements, while some States require a minimal training and safely course, while others require extensive multi-day live-fire training.

        The number of CCW license holders is substantial, so obviously if training made a big deal you’d be able to see the trend. (guess what? One isn’t there!)

        Bottom line, if you don’t train on your own, the most extensive multi-day course isn’t worth much a year later.

        Like everything else, use it or loose it. Moreover if you train on your own, you don’t need a course in the first place.

        Bottom line, Illegal gun owners like you, MikeB, are the cause of nearly all the gun deaths, and violence in this and every other country.

        Why won’t you help us stop others from becoming like you?

      • #174 by Bob S. on June 29, 2009 - 3:22 am

        MikeB,

        Once again you seem to open your mouth and because you think something it should be true.

        Is it really possible that in Utah you can get a CCW license without live fire training? Even if the requirements are some minimum of live fire training it’s absurd.

        Yes, It is possible. According to the DATA, it doesn’t seem to be a problem. Of course, looking at information to see if people with CCW licenses are hurting themselves or others due to lack of training might destroy your argument.

        Bob S. for one, that they train regularly at a shooting range, but conceivably there are guys carrying with little or no experience even firing the weapon.

        I believe that you carried a firearm previously (illegally) did you take a class prior to carrying that firearm? Did you train on a regular basis? Did you hurt anyone accidentally or through lack of training?

        Why don’t you share your personal experience with us.

        Honestly, I’m shocked and appalled.

        Seems like much shocks and appalls you, except for what cold blooded criminals do, then you find an excuse for their behavior.

        Normal average citizens carrying firearms shocks and appalls you, I’m not surprised.
        Do you know that citizens can carry knives without having to be “trained” in their use?
        Do you know that citizens can carry sticks for fighting without having to be “trained” in their use? (canes, walking sticks)
        Do you know that citizens can carry mace, pepper spray without being trained in its use?

        And yet, all these citizens acting “irresponsibly” without very few problem. Amazing.

        What I find shocking and appalling is the depth that gun banners like you will sink to. Is there nothing that you won’t try to deprive people of their rights?

        • #175 by James Farmer on June 29, 2009 - 8:52 am

          Bob S.

          Do your self a favor and stop comparing guns to knives, sticks and pepper spray; the absurdity of various of your arguments shines brightly when you do.

          • #176 by Bob S. on June 29, 2009 - 9:15 am

            James,

            Instead of just saying the argument doesn’t work, why don’t you try…key word…try to explain why guns are in such a special class they can’t be compared to any other defense tool or tool used to assault/murder?

            I find it laughable that people who want to ban guns or restrict our rights are so adamant that guns are so special…yet they can’t explain why without logical fallacy.

            I think you are in the camp of “because I say so, that is reality” group.

            I also see you are in the camp of not addressing the issue but trying to side track it. How about addressing the issues I raised in the comment? IF you can.

          • #177 by James Farmer on June 29, 2009 - 2:02 pm

            Bob:

            The answer is simple. Guns can and should be considered inherently dangerous. Again, the fact you feel the need constantly to condescend raises questions about your arguments and commentary in general.

  104. #178 by mike w. on June 28, 2009 - 7:50 pm

    Guess that gives me a reason not to travel to NV then Becky.

    What amazes me is that NV has arbitrarily denied the ability of everyone with a UT permit to carry in their state. Why? They haven’t identified a “problem” If you can’t show evidence of a problem why deny the permits, other than for political / bureaucratic reasons?

  105. #179 by Bob S. on June 29, 2009 - 2:38 pm

    James Farmer :
    Bob:
    The answer is simple. Guns can and should be considered inherently dangerous. Again, the fact you feel the need constantly to condescend raises questions about your arguments and commentary in general.

    James,

    Knives are inherently dangerous. So is gasoline.

    So your argument fails because you do not distinguish between those items. Most laws classifies knives, clubs, brassknuckles as dangerous weapons.

    Asking you condescending questions is different from asking condescending questions…because you consistently do not address the issues.

    If that is what it takes to get an answer I’ll do it.

    An axe are inherently dangerous, but I don’t see you calling for background checks on those.

    Again, the gun banners arguments are based on pure emotion, not logic, not legal reasoning, just emotion.

    • #180 by James Farmer on June 29, 2009 - 2:55 pm

      Bob:

      Show me where anyone legally classifies an ax as inherently dangerous in the same context as a gun is. Further, you compared guns with sticks and pepper spray. My answer was entirely responsive to your comment. You just don’t like the answer because it directly undercuts the absolute absurdity in your comment.

      Let’s not lose context here. I am a gun owner and have been for some time. I do not advocate abolition of private gun ownership. I do, however, advocate sensible laws concerning gun ownership.

      As I have stated before, you are an extremist on this issue, and there is really no place for extremists in sensible debate. Thus, I expect whatever reasoned response I provide to your commentary be met with condescension. Your “emotion” in this regard betrays your entire argument. Go back to sleep!

      • #181 by Bob S. on June 29, 2009 - 4:58 pm

        James,

        Nice of you to be the one to classify me as an extremist and do so only because we disagree on what is sensible.

        Many locations control pepper spray as a weapon..the same as firearms. Fighting sticks, Tonfas, Billy Clubs are also treated as dangerous weapons…the same as firearms.

        Looks like Texas classifies those items the same

        TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS

        CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS

        Sec. 46.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

        (1) “Club” means an instrument that is specially designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by striking a person with the instrument, and includes but is not limited to the following:

        (A) blackjack;

        (B) nightstick;

        (C) mace;

        (D) tomahawk.

        (2) “Explosive weapon” means any explosive or incendiary bomb, grenade, rocket, or mine, that is designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury, death, or substantial property damage, or for the principal purpose of causing such a loud report as to cause undue public alarm or terror, and includes a device designed, made, or adapted for delivery or shooting an explosive weapon.

        (3) “Firearm” means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that is:

        (A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899; or

        (B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition.

        (4) “Firearm silencer” means any device designed, made, or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm.

        (5) “Handgun” means any firearm that is designed, made, or adapted to be fired with one hand.

        (6) “Illegal knife” means a:

        (A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches;

        (B) hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being thrown;

        (C) dagger, including but not limited to a dirk, stiletto, and poniard;

        (D) bowie knife;

        (E) sword; or

        (F) spear.

        (7) “Knife” means any bladed hand instrument that is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by cutting or stabbing a person with the instrument.

        (8) “Knuckles” means any instrument that consists of finger rings or guards made of a hard substance and that is designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by striking a person with a fist enclosed in the knuckles.

        Are you advocating for sensible Tomahawk laws that require back ground checks? how about brass knuckles?

        This is what I mean when people like you want to put firearms in a special category….you don’t apply the same restrictions to the similar weapons.

        and there is really no place for extremists in sensible debate.

        That is your opinion, and in my view, a false one.
        Extremists have a place in every debate, they are the ones forcing all the issues to be considered, making sure that all the people are being heard. If it was up to gun owners like you, we would probably have to have government permission to buy a round of ammunition, record when, where, why and how we expended it and be subjected to monthly inspections….are those sensible?

        Those are some of the proposals “moderates” like you have proposed….I say no thanks.

        I provide to your commentary be met with condescension. Your “emotion” in this regard betrays your entire argument. Go back to sleep!

        Pot – Kettle, Kettle meet Pot.

        • #182 by James Farmer on June 30, 2009 - 10:30 am

          Yes. I’d say extremist sums up your position quite well. As pointed out below, you are 100% incapable of compromise when it comes to guns. Your commentary is entirely predictable as to the end result. If it makes sense to moderates – then it is outrageously restrictive to you. Comparing guns with sticks is just one example. As I said previously, I find it easier and more productive to just stand aside and let you prattle on re the parade or horribles this country would experience were sensible gun-control legislation adopted. Prattle on, dude!

          • #183 by Bob S. on June 30, 2009 - 10:52 am

            James

            And you don’t list one proposal for me to say yes or no to…yet you call me extremist because I won’t agree to proposals….isn’t that IRONIC?

            I lawfully carry a firearm under the laws of Texas, if I was an extremist…wouldn’t I not abide by the current laws?
            Concealed carry in itself is a compromise, isn’t it?
            How about the NCIS background check that I underwent when I purchased a firearm? Isn’t that a compromise that I agreed to ?

            So, you want to talk about me some more (I don’t mind) or do you want to talk about the “sensible gun laws”?

      • #184 by mikeb302000 on June 29, 2009 - 10:20 pm

        These guys who compare guns to knives know their argument is weak and try to compensate with repetition.

        People who are shot die more than people who are stabbed. That’s the whole story right there.

  106. #185 by cav on June 29, 2009 - 2:44 pm

    Emotions are not without impact, especially when, in the throes of a broken system, the masses are left to fend for themselves. The nutiness level tends to rise.

  107. #186 by jdberger on June 29, 2009 - 3:27 pm

    Show me where anyone legally classifies an ax as inherently dangerous in the same context as a gun is.

    That’s a pretty interesting challenge.

    How about where one party uses attacks another with an ax.

    There you’d have the ax classified as a “dangerous weapon” by the law. Further, you’d have it classified in the same context as an assault with a firearm.

    Tada!

    Now, Jim, I’m sure that you are aware that in some States, carrying something like a club (tire thumper, baseball bat” in your car can be prosecuted as a felony while carrying a loaded gun in your car could be prosecuted as a misdemeanor.

    Now, what was it you were saying about something being “inherently” dangerous?

  108. #187 by jdberger on June 29, 2009 - 3:38 pm

    Just for fun, legally, an unloaded gun is not “inherently dangerous”. Dixon v. Bell (1916)

    Further, items like a soda water bottle have been found to be “naturally dangerous”. Torgesen v. Schultz (1908)

    • #188 by James Farmer on June 29, 2009 - 3:48 pm

      jd:

      Congratulations. You have managed to shell game the entire discussion with your last two comments. For your own edification, however, you may want to review the definition of “inherently dangerous” and its application in the law. Further, you may want to conduct this review with your eyes wide open rather than shut. It will be good for you, really.

      PS. Go tell the parents of the child recently killed in Utah by Grandpa’s gun that guns are not inherently dangerous. If you do, I suggest you stand out of striking range.

      • #189 by mike w. on June 29, 2009 - 9:48 pm

        The GUN killed the kids? Really? How’d it do that? Did it jump up, load itself, point itself at the children and fire? No? Well then a PERSON killed those kids, consciously and of his own free will.

        That gun was not “inherently dangerous” without conscious and deliberate manipulation by a human being. The persons ACTIONS with the gun made it dangerous.

  109. #190 by Bob S. on June 29, 2009 - 5:04 pm

    James,

    PS. Go tell the parents of the child recently killed in Utah by Grandpa’s gun that guns are not inherently dangerous. If you do, I suggest you stand out of striking range.

    And you go tell the parents and family of the people who have used firearms defensively. Tell them you want to make it more difficult for people to own, possess and use firearms. Tell them we have to place greater restrictions on their rights to defend themselves because criminals are breaking the law.

    I suggest you do it in striking range.

    This is the problem with people who only want to focus on firearms in the debate about safety. You loose sight of what matters…saving lives.

    • #191 by James Farmer on June 29, 2009 - 5:14 pm

      Bob:

      I see that you have picked up on jd’s shell game technique quite handily. Congratulations to you, too!

      Again, it’s all or nothing with you guys. You are extremists and there is simply no reasoning with you. Notice that not once have I suggested that greater restrictions on their rights to defend themselves be placed. That is a fabrication of wholecloth that you manufactured for your extremist position. If you cannot be genuine, let alone reasonable, in your arguments, then there is little left for one to do but step aside and let you ramble. You are the epitome of ipse dixit.

      • #192 by Bob S. on June 29, 2009 - 7:08 pm

        James,

        Do you see me advocating the revocation of every gun control law?

        Do you see me suggesting that 7year old be allowed to walk around with full auto weapons?

        All or nothing is a gross mischaracterization of my position and you know that…so does that mean you are lying?

        Notice that not once have I suggested that greater restrictions on their rights to defend themselves be placed

        Name a “sensible” gun control law that doesn’t place greater restrictions on the law abiding person’s ability to obtain, possess and use a firearm for their defense?

        For Example, Universal background checks? Increases the cost, the time — which is short for many people– and the hassle of legally purchasing a firearm.

        Name the sensible gun control laws and be honest, you’ll see that every one that ADDS TO THE EXISTING laws increases the hassle, costs and administrative burden of obtaining, possessing and using a firearm.

        Name the sensible gun control laws you would add ?

        You still haven’t address the fact that you want to put firearms in a special class by themselves and why?
        You said they are “inherently dangerous” but many things are.

        So, why should firearms be treated any differently than knives, gasoline, etc?

        • #193 by Richard Warnick on June 29, 2009 - 9:09 pm

          If you are interested in sensible legislative proposals, then refer to my post from June 17.

          I noticed most of the 7 proposals I listed were never addressed in comments. Instead, we got the same straw-man arguments as always.

  110. #194 by jdberger on June 29, 2009 - 5:08 pm

    James – from the master, I accept the compliment. Thank you.

  111. #195 by mike w. on June 29, 2009 - 9:50 pm

    As far as whether we’re “extremists” Using my 1st Amendment rights to defend the 2nd is not “extreme” by any stretch of the imagination.

    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
    -Barry Goldwater

  112. #196 by mikeb302000 on June 29, 2009 - 10:28 pm

    In the year that I’ve known Bob S. and the six months that I’ve known Mike W., not once have I heard either one of them concede even a minor point. I don’t call that extremist. I call that unreasonable. They are unreasonable men who seem to think gun control people are the enemy, not violent criminals, but the pro-gun-control folks.

  113. #197 by Weer'd Beard on June 30, 2009 - 6:09 am

    mikeb302000 :
    These guys who compare guns to knives know their argument is weak and try to compensate with repetition.
    People who are shot die more than people who are stabbed. That’s the whole story right there.

    Probably true (tho handgun survival rates are in the 80% range, so we’d be splitting hairs)

    Of course to point out the stopping power, and the fact that little strength is needed to wield a firearm, is the exact reason why they do more good than harm in this country. They’d do a LOT more good if it wasn’t for Zealots like MikeB, Richard, and Cliff et al.

    Also, MikeB, you’re one to talk. First up you’re not representing the truth in your ” not once have I heard either one of them concede even a minor point”, line. Unture.

    Worse yet, you also concede points to us…but unlike us, you continue to use the points after you’ve agreed they’re bullshit.

    See: Mexican 90% Gun Canard
    See: Dealth Penalty is State-Sponsored Murder
    See: Assault Weapons Ban

    I could go on. You’re a hypocrite, MikeB, and you like to call others names better suited for you.

    Ready to talk about your illegal guns now? Or do you actually not care about criminals getting guns?

  114. #198 by CongMoney on June 30, 2009 - 7:07 am

    Those are real sad news. Poor innocent girl, i think the ones in fault there are the grandparents. Guns should be placed where only the owner knows where it is. And it must be 100% sure to be out of any child’s reach.
    Poor girl, she just want to celebrate her birthday.

  115. #199 by mike w. on June 30, 2009 - 7:16 am

    Richard – None of your proposals were sensible or reasonable.

    I fail to see how anyone with the capacity for rational thought could call a ban “sensible” that

    1. had NO impact on violent crime
    2. Banned weapons that were not being used in crimes.
    3. Arbitarily banned safety features and limited magazine capacity

    • #200 by Richard Warnick on June 30, 2009 - 8:10 am

      And yet, the assault weapons ban coincided with a decade-long drop in violence. Gun homicides went down 37 percent.

      • #201 by Bob S. on June 30, 2009 - 8:35 am

        Richard,

        You used the exactly correct word “coincided”, I’m proud of you. Can you show any evidence of CAUSATION? — that is proof the AWB caused crime to drop?

        There is no evidence the Assault Weapon Ban ITSELF reduced crime.

        Could it have been the economy was improving, thus reducing poverty? Poverty which has a higher correlation to crime rates then firearm ownership?

        Could it have been the mandatory prison sentences that were finally to start get and keep criminals off the street?

        Could it have been the passage of concealed carry laws that was making criminals think twice about crime?

        Could have been any, all or a combination of many factors. What we do know is that the effectiveness of gun control laws has not been proven.

        Bans on specified firearms or ammunition. Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent: certain studies indicated decreases in violence associated with bans, and others indicated increases. Several studies found that the number of banned guns retrieved after a crime declined when bans were enacted, but these studies did not assess violent consequences (16,17). Studies of the 1976 Washington, D.C. handgun ban yielded inconsistent results (18–20). Bans often include “grandfather” provisions, allowing ownership of an item if it is acquired before the ban, complicating an assessment of causality. Finally, evidence indicated that sales of firearms to be banned might increase in the period before implementation of the bans (e.g., the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994) (21).
        * Combinations of firearms laws. Governmental jurisdictions (e.g., states or nations) can be characterized by the degree to which they regulate firearm possession and use. Whether a greater degree of firearms regulation in a jurisdiction results in a reduction of the amount of violence in that jurisdiction still needs to be determined. Three kinds of evidence were reviewed for this study: 1) studies of the effects of comprehensive national laws within nations; 2) international comparisons of comprehensive laws; and 3) studies in which law types within jurisdictions (i.e., regulation of specific, defined aspects of firearm acquisition and use) were categorized and counted, and counts compared with rates of specific forms of violence within the same jurisdictions. The latter type are referred to here as index studies because they developed indices of the degree of regulation. In drawing conclusions about law combinations, findings from the three approaches were considered.
        On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent and most studies were methodologically inadequate to allow conclusions about causal effects. Moreover, as conducted, index studies, even if consistent, would not allow specification of which laws to implement.

        In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.

        So, when there isn’t clear evidence that the law — which infringes on the right to keep and bear arms– isn’t providing a clear and definite benefit to society, shouldn’t the law be removed and people’s rights NOT RESTRICTED?

        edited to add link to citation — http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

        • #202 by Richard Warnick on June 30, 2009 - 8:48 am

          The fact that there is no reason whatever for any well-intentioned individual to own a working assault rifle is a good enough reason to ban them.

          I do think that the ban helped reduce gun violence, but I readily agree other factors are at work. The studies I have read suggest the ban was not in place long enough to have the intended effect. Thanks, Gun Lobby!

          How do you explain the resurgence of gun deaths that followed the expiration of the assault weapons ban?

          • #203 by Bob S. on June 30, 2009 - 9:11 am

            Richard,

            I do think that the ban helped reduce gun violence,

            You think? But no evidence, no proof. Even the CDC didn’t find any…yet you are willing to restrict the rights of people. And what did the Assault Weapons ban do? Restrict access to firearms based on cosmetic or ergonomic features.

            Wow…guess that really showed the people with arthritis eh? Have to keep that pistol grip out of their hands. Or the bayonet lug….can’t have a rifle that LOOKS like the one the military uses, can we? After all, there could be a drive by “bayonetting” can’t have that can we?

            How do I explain the resurgence of gun deaths? Perhaps an increase in plea bargains that let violent criminals stay on the streets.

            Or more violent thugs being released from jail due to over crowding?

            How about a decrease in state revenues that decreased the redistribution of money…poverty leading to crime.

            Shouldn’t we address those issues; poverty, education, overcrowded prisons, etc — before we go about restricting the rights of the law abiding?

            The fact that there is no reason whatever for any well-intentioned individual to own a working assault rifle is a good enough reason to ban them.

            Let’s go back to this…what about individuals who are part time or volunteer law enforcement? Shouldn’t they be able to purchase “assault rifles”?

            That is ONE good reason right there. Many small departments depend on volunteers and even the paid officers are some times required to furnish there own firearms.

  116. #204 by mike w. on June 30, 2009 - 11:50 am

    10 years wasn’t long enough? If the AWB was going to reduce crime we’d have seen ample evidence of such.

    Hell, we waited 30+ years for the all out ban in DC to start “working” and yet DC’s violent crime rates have been astronomically high for decades.

    Even the NIJ study conducted by the Clinton Administration could not conclude that the AWB lowered crime rates.

    http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

    • #205 by Richard Warnick on June 30, 2009 - 12:14 pm

      I think the assault weapons ban did reduce crime, but it’s unclear by how much. And let’s remember there are a lot of these rifles out there already. They don’t evaporate when Congress passes a law.

      • #206 by Bob S. on June 30, 2009 - 12:40 pm

        And most of those rifles were not used in crimes to begin with!!

        There wasn’t a problem, the AWB didn’t solve a problem, there is no evidence it made a difference in crime…therefore LET’S DO IT AGAIN – that is logical thinking, eh?

        On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence.

        In the mean time, people’s rights are being abridged because YOU THINK it might make a difference, is that the gist of it?

        A number of factors—including the fact that the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country, the limited availability of data on the weapons, other components of the Crime Control Act of 1994, and State and local initiatives implemented at the same time—posed challenges in discerning the effects of the ban.

        Various provisions of the ban limited its potential effects on criminal use. As shown in exhibit 1, about half the banned makes and models were rifles, which are hard to conceal for criminal use.

        However, other analyses using a variety of national and local data sources found no clear ban effects on certain types of murders that were thought to be more closely associated with the rapid-fire features of
        assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims
        with multiple wounds.

        That information is from the Congressionally mandated study during the Clinton Administration.

        They don’t evaporate when Congress passes a law.

        Does that suggest you would be in favor of confiscating “assault rifles”?

        • #207 by Richard Warnick on June 30, 2009 - 1:29 pm

          In answer to your question:

          Does that suggest you would be in favor of confiscating “assault rifles”?

          No. I think the benefit of reinstating the assault weapons ban would be to reduce the ready availability of military-style assault rifles in the USA. The situation right now is, they are for sale legally in thousands of gun shops. That’s how the Mexican drug cartels are arming themselves.

          You don’t think there’s a problem. But there is. Criminals should not have more firepower than the police.

          Police Deaths Call for Renewed Assault Weapons Ban
          Police Chiefs Call For Assault Weapons Ban
          Philadelphia Officials Call For Assault Weapons Ban After Police Officer’s Murder
          International Association of Chiefs of Police: Reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban
          Tennessee’s Police Chiefs Want Ban Reinstated on Assault Weapons

          There’s more where those links came from.

          • #208 by Bob S. on June 30, 2009 - 1:58 pm

            So, let’s prohibit anything that would give criminals more firepower than the cops….Oh wait, I can’t think of one, not 1 prohibition that has worked.

            Alcohol in the 1920s? NOPE
            War on (Some) Drugs?

            Maybe it is because the criminals WON’T FOLLOW THE LAW.

            That’s how the Mexican drug cartels are arming themselves.

            BUNK! there is a very small percentage of firearms being ILLEGALLY PURCHASE/TRANSFERRED and smuggled to Mexico…something like 17% or less.

            Let’s use some common sense here Richard, which is more likely

            Drug cartels with MILLIONS of dollars to spend will

            A.) pay people to purchase firearms one or a few at a time, then transfer them to another person who either smuggles them to Mexico or sells them to someone who does —–and do this in high enough quantity to arm THOUSANDS of thugs.

            or

            B.) Purchase firearms from foreign dealers from countries with lax laws and smuggle vast quantities of firearms into the country to arm their thousands of thugs

            or

            C.) Entice soldiers to sell the arms supplied by the Mexican government and/or desert with those same arms…Mexican army desertions number about 150,000.

            So, what does common sense say is the avenue MOST firearms are reaching Mexican Drug cartels?

          • #209 by mike w. on June 30, 2009 - 6:54 pm

            Just to demonstrate the sheer absurdity and idiocy of the anti-gun position. Richard’s 3rd link, the article about needing a renewed AWB because a cop was shot.

            You’ve got anti’s calling for a renewed AWB because the cops was shot by a career criminal with a 65+ year old SKS rifle which WAS NOT BANNED UNDER THE 94 AWB. It was not and is not an assault weapon.

            Not only that, but he was shot by a prohibited person, a felon who couldn’t own a single action .22 much less an “assault weapon” (if the weapon in question were classified as such)

  117. #210 by mike w. on June 30, 2009 - 1:27 pm

    I’ve shown MikeB the FBI data on NUMEROUS occasions.

    Let’s look at the 2007 FBI UCR crime data

    2007 FBI UCR Expanded Homicide Data Table 10

    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html

    Total murders with a firearm for 2007 were 10,086. Of those a rifle was used in 450. Thats 4.46% of all murders, and remember that’s for ALL RIFLES, everything from your single shot .22 to an AR-15, to a Barrett .50BMG.

    Let’s assume “assault weapons” account for 10% of all the rifles used in crime (a very generous assumption given the sheer number and variety of firearms that fall under the category “rifle”) that would mean, so called “assault weapons” were used in LESS THAN ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT OF ALL MURDERS in 2007.

    So you’re telling me I should surrender my right to own “assault weapons” because criminals use them a fraction of 1% of the time?

    • #211 by mikeb302000 on July 1, 2009 - 12:21 pm

      Yes, you certainly have provided those fudged and tricked-out numbers before. I answered too, with a more accurate percentage. I’ll have to dig it up and send it to you again.

  118. #212 by jdberger on June 30, 2009 - 1:47 pm

    You don’t think there’s a problem. But there is. Criminals should not have more firepower than the police.

    How about citizens? When cops go bad, should citizens be able to fight back, Richard? What do you think about the Stonewall Riots? The Battle of Athens? The Colfax Massacre? Should those citizens be allowed the modality to fight back against a corrupt system?

    Finally, you do realize that most cops carry a “patrol rifle” or at the very least a shotgun in their vehicles. Considering the average criminal doesn’t tote around a difficult to conceal rifle, how does that give the criminals more firepower than the police?

    • #213 by Richard Warnick on June 30, 2009 - 2:13 pm

      There you go again, advocating armed insurrection.

      That shooter in Alabama three months ago initially overwhelmed the police, who were unable to stop him until after he killed a bunch of people. That should never happen.

  119. #214 by jdberger on June 30, 2009 - 1:51 pm

    Thanks for the links, RIchard.

    Are you suggesting that we should look to the police to define our civil rights?

    How about we start with the Fourth Amendment?

    There is one thing that’s become readily apparent in these conversations. Bob and Weer’d and Mike, .45 and I have all been remarkably consistent when it comes to “rights”. We treat the Bill of Rights with a consistancy that seems to be absent among the “banners”.

    That’s a shame.

    • #215 by Richard Warnick on June 30, 2009 - 2:17 pm

      No one I can think of has suggested that the police, the NSA or anyone else ought to violate the Fourth Amendment. Where do you get that?

  120. #216 by jdberger on June 30, 2009 - 1:53 pm

    One last thing, I challenge your assertion that a drug cartel, involved in a Billion dollar business manufacturing and smuggling thousands of tons of contraband smuggles its guns from the US one person at a time.

    Your assertion is ludicrous on its face.

    • #217 by James Farmer on June 30, 2009 - 2:10 pm

      The Brookings Institute estimates that 2,000 guns are transported into Mexico each day from the US.

      • #218 by Bob S. on June 30, 2009 - 2:18 pm

        So, why not have Mexico enforce its border and customs…instead of taking away our rights?

        Isn’t it already illegal to conduct a straw purchase, to import firearms without permission into Mexico?

        So many laws are being broken…let’s pass more laws the crooks will also ignore!!

  121. #219 by jdberger on June 30, 2009 - 2:17 pm

    The Brookings Institute estimates that 2,000 guns are transported into Mexico each day from the US.

    Based on what? They’re delusional.

    Drill down and see where they got their data.

    • #220 by James Farmer on June 30, 2009 - 2:23 pm

      jd:

      I am certain you find scientists, whose opinions back man made climate change, delusional, too.

      Again. Extremists, unwilling to concede or compromise.

      Prattle on!

  122. #221 by jdberger on June 30, 2009 - 2:21 pm

    James…see if this makes more sense.

    The assertion that the Cartels are getting all their weapons from the US doesn’t pass the smell test.

  123. #222 by jdberger on June 30, 2009 - 2:24 pm

    There you go again, advocating armed insurrection.

    Look at that. Richard’s been boning up in his reading skills.

  124. #223 by jdberger on June 30, 2009 - 2:38 pm

    I am certain you find scientists, whose opinions back man made climate change, delusional, too.

    Again. Extremists, unwilling to concede or compromise.

    Prattle on!

    You know better, James. I’ve exposed you to both sides of the debate (remember Carl Bogus?). Take a moment and drill down and see where that data comes from.

    C’mon. This is your job. You should be good at it, no?

  125. #224 by Bob S. on June 30, 2009 - 2:39 pm

    Richard

    That shooter in Alabama three months ago initially overwhelmed the police, who were unable to stop him until after he killed a bunch of people. That should never happen.

    You are right, let’s re-write the laws of time, gravity and physics so the police are never overwhelmed again…should be fairly simple to do, right?

    Let’s go back in time and remove all traces of the mention of “gunpowder” and “TNT” or “C4″ or anything that could possibly overwhelm a police force.

    Guess we need to ban gasoline also, since a molotov cocktail or gasoline bomb could overwhelm a police force.

    Of course that means we have to ban grain since that can be used to create an explosion.

    Almost any finely divided organic substance will produce an explosive mixture in an air suspension. Very fine flour is dangerous in air suspension, as it too can explode.

    Or, we can use common sense and decide that liberty means risk in life and the infrequent occurrences do not rise to the level of restricting everyone else’s rights.

    Sort of like drunk driving, we don’t ban private cars because people get drunk, drive and murder people do we?

    How far are you willing to go to keep the police safe Richard?

    If every was required to go nude, then the police would be assured no one had concealed weapons. Should we require that?

    If everyone had to submit to random searches by the police, there would be less crime…Should we require that?

    How far do we go to make the world a safer place Richard?

    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

  126. #225 by jdberger on June 30, 2009 - 3:16 pm

    Hmmm…..there’s that nasty 4th Amendment, again….

    You could probably roll the 5th in there, too.

    I guess that this is why we don’t let the police determine constitutional rights.

  127. #226 by mike w. on July 1, 2009 - 1:35 pm

    MikeB – How exactly are those numbers (which are the FBI’s own data) “fudged” or “tricked out?” Did you actually click the link and LOOK at what I’m talking about or are you just crying foul because you don’t the fact that the data disproves your claims?

    Even if I manipulate the data even more strongly in your favor and say that “assault weapons” were used in HALF of all 450 murders with rifles (which would be absurd) the percentage STILL only rises to 2.23%

    The data, even pushing it in your favor, plainly shows that “assault weapons” are NOT a problem and are NOT used in crimes. You want restrictons on rights? You folks want restrictions on rights but can’t even bother to show evidence of a PROBLEM which the restriction is supposed to address.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: