Gun violence close to home

[lost highway]

I love you, lost highway. You say what I was trying to say so much better and so much less emotionally than I do.

 

Thanks.  I like to talk a lot.

[Ghost of Electricity]

Maybe I can summarize:

 

There seems to be an effort to close some loopholes and reduce the statistical probability for violent crime using guns by a few percent, you know tens of lives a year.  Not sure what's threatening about it. 

 

There is also a more radical vision for a U.S. without guns.  I think all sides recognize it as a long-shot.

 

Then there is the radical pro-gun side.  Aside from quipping about how misguided a bureaucrat's view of an 'assault rifle' is, I'm seeing a counter argument as insane as the "defense against tyranny, American values, bald eagle" approach, or as shallow as the "dude I just like guns for fun, so no you can't take them away."  I realize these two caricatures are over-reaching and less than flattering- but I want to insight a clearer defense.  Strip away emotion, vague concepts about America, what is really so essential about the right to launch lead pellets with deadly force out of a metal barrel.  How valuable is that?

I must spend too much time on Facebook because i was looking for the "like" button.

[kidsmoke]

Tonight I went through the intersection where the Riverside police were ambushed (and 1 killed) last Thursday. 3 of its 4 corners held shrines...a lovely wreath on a stand, a cross, and a cluster of tall glass candles flickering in front of the Parent Navel Orange Tree, which is at that intersection. (This tree is the one that began the entire Southern CA citrus industry, literally. It's still living & still producing oranges after all these years! It's nicely fenced off for protection.)

 

Passing through the intersection, and seeing all the candles, flowers, and the cross made me think of how peaceful the night must've been, like tonight, and how sudden and brutal the attack was. Dorner drove up next to the patrol car and shot out the back windshield. The officers never even had a chance to react. I was in tears by the time we'd crossed the intersection.

[Hixter]

If the same laws for cars were applied to guns (titling, registration, licensing of users, training of users) would that be a bad thing?  The back ground check would be done by the State.  would it keep every gun out of the hands of people who would do harm with said gun?  Does it inconvenience you as a gun owner?

Yes, it would inconvenience me greatly in terms of my time and my finances if I had to trudge over to a facility that does background checks every time I wanted to give a firearm to my son. It would also create a database of legally owned guns that could be used in future confiscations.

 

 

I hate the argument, that gun laws don't stop criminals from getting and using guns.  Drunk driving is a serious problem in Wisconsin, we have several laws against dunk driving, but yet nearly weekly I see a story that some has been pulled over for their 4 or 5th OWI.  Apparently people are still going to drink and drive.  So by the pro-gun logic we should end enforcement of drinking and driving.  Obviously it is not working, right?

I've never said that we should stop enforcing current laws. I've said many times that adding additional laws "to save our children" is a political smokescreen and won't do anything to solve the problem. Your drinking/driving observation is a perfect example of criminals doing criminal things despite knowing that what they're doing is illegal. They ignore the law just like street criminals ignore gun laws and will continue to do so even if more laws are added to the books.

We outlawed Joe the Camel, can we outlaw the marketing of guns that equate owning a particular gun with manliness?

I've never seen such marketing. The closest thing I can think of would be certain hip-hop performers, video games, movies and television programs. Should we outlaw them?

gee there's a statistic to be proud of.  takes japan what, ten years to reach that noble number.  get a grip.

 

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/20/more-americans-have-died-from-domestic-gunfire-than-all-wars-in-u-s-history-is-that-true/

That figure includes suicides, which are typically about double the number of gun murders. Suicides have no place in the discussion of gun violence.

what is really so essential about the right to launch lead pellets with deadly force out of a metal barrel.  How valuable is that?

Protecting myself and my loved ones from other people intent on launching lead pellets at us is the most valuable thing in the world to me.

[Ghost of Electricity]

 

That figure includes suicides, which are typically about double the number of gun murders. Suicides have no place in the discussion of gun violence.

 

Protecting myself and my loved ones from other people intent on launching lead pellets at us is the most valuable thing in the world to me.

I assume you're talking about the info in the link.  You didn't respond to the Japan reference.  here's another link which deals directly with that: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

 

regarding personal security, i don't don't that it makes you FEEL safer, but when put to the test of logic, we can see that it does not, in fact, make us safer.  . Let's say an intruder eners your home. There are four possible variations to this scenario. 1) both you and the intruder are unarmed 2)you are armed and the intruder is not 3)the intruder is armed and you are not 4)both you and the intruder are armed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the situation which will most likely result in a firearm-related injury or death is number 4, and the situation which is least likely to result in a firearm-related injury or death is number one. If the intruder is armed and you are not, you are likely to say something like "take what you want, just don't hurt us, which would be the likely outcome.

 

by the way, the statistics also show that having a gun in the home makes you less, not more, safe.

[Hixter]

You didn't respond to the Japan reference.

Apples and oranges; you can't compare 2 countries with vastly different demographics, morals, traditions, etc., but I'll bet Japan's numbers would look just like ours if we shipped them a couple million gang bangers and street thugs. And let's not forget that little thing called the Second Amendment.

 

There are four possible variations to this scenario. 1) both you and the intruder are unarmed 2)you are armed and the intruder is not 3)the intruder is armed and you are not 4)both you and the intruder are armed.

Incorrect, unless you are a mind reader you have no way of knowing the intruder's intentions. I will always assume that someone who breaks into my home is armed and will injure and/or kill me if confronted rather than risk being identified and thrown in jail. I will do my best to kill the intruder before the intruder has a chance to harm me. I'm not going to worry about statistics, I'm going to do my best to prevent injury to myself.

[Ghost of Electricity]

Apples and oranges; you can't compare 2 countries with vastly different demographics, morals, traditions, etc., but I'll bet Japan's numbers would look just like ours if we shipped them a couple million gang bangers and street thugs. And let's not forget that little thing called the Second Amendment.

 

Incorrect, unless you are a mind reader you have no way of knowing the intruder's intentions. I will always assume that someone who breaks into my home is armed and will injure and/or kill me if confronted rather than risk being identified and thrown in jail. I will do my best to kill the intruder before the intruder has a chance to harm me. I'm not going to worry about statistics, I'm going to do my best to prevent injury to myself.

In Japan there is plenty of organized crime.  And the 2nd Amendment is exactly what needs to be repealed.

 

If the intruder enters with intent to harm, it is likely that he will harm you regardless of whether you have a weapon or not, as he will have the element of surprise.  Do you watch t.v. holding your gun?  do you sleep with your gun? does it sit on the bathroom counter when you are in the shower?  

 

If the intruder enters with any other intent, such as intent to rob, it's unlikely that he will hurt you.  

 

And incidentally, the four possible scenarios you said were incorrect are incontrovertably true.  I suggest you choose your quotes (and your arguments) more carefully.

[KevinG]

And the 2nd Amendment is exactly what needs to be repealed.

 

I am completely anti-gun and I don't want to see the 2nd Amendment repealed.  I think a rethinking / or a reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment is needed.  Repeal not so much.  

 

F it, let's get into a debate on 2nd amendment.  

 

The second amendment says this: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  

 

The current crops of laws deal more with the type of weapons and how the weapons are bought rather then completely eliminating them.  We can go round and round about the effect of these proposals would have on violence etc. but tell me this, would it infringe on your rights?  If so how?  

 

Do Background checks infringe on your rights?  

Saying that you can't own an AR15 with a 100 round clip infringe on your rights?

Does not being able to buy a rocket launcher infringe on your rights?

[Hixter]

In Japan there is plenty of organized crime.  

And they also have a suicide rate that's twice that of the United States. As I said, different countries and different cultures. Apples and oranges.

 

 

If the intruder enters with intent to harm, it is likely that he will harm you regardless of whether you have a weapon or not, as he will have the element of surprise.

Not likely. And trust me, I can get to my weapons in about 2 seconds while at home or in my vehicle.

 

If the intruder enters with any other intent, such as intent to rob, it's unlikely that he will hurt you.

The resident has no possible way of knowing what the burglar's intentions are and the news is full of stories about people who were killed after surprising the crooks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who breaks into my house has plans to harm me and I will do everything possible to stop them from doing so. Such action will probably be of the 12-gauge variety.

And incidentally, the four possible scenarios you said were incorrect are incontrovertably true.

No, they are not. 

[Hixter]

The current crops of laws deal more with the type of weapons and how the weapons are bought rather then completely eliminating them.  We can go round and round about the effect of these proposals would have on violence etc. but tell me this, would it infringe on your rights?  If so how?  

It's quite clear that there are those who would take away all of our guns (see the above posts and cities like Chicago) and every time they chip away at magazine capacity and cosmetic items like pistol grips it erodes our Second Amendment rights just a little more. Things like New York's 7-round limit essentially outlaw every pistol other than a revolver. And it really bothers me that the government officials that are drafting the new laws have exempted themselves from having to follow said laws.

Do Background checks infringe on your rights?  

As I've said, I submit to them all the time. But ask yourself whether you really believe that the government needs to know your medical history.

Saying that you can't own an AR15 with a 100 round clip infringe on your rights?

100-round magazines are a joke. But saying I can't own the most popular sporting rifle in the country is an infringement on my rights; it's no different than grandpa's old .22.

[ih8music]

Hixter, I say with all the sincerity I can muster, you are the poster child for the NRA. And I think people like you make our country less safe -- because you seem to think that any laws regulating your precious guns are wrong. Grow the f up.

[Ghost of Electricity]

. But ask yourself whether you really believe that the government needs to know your medical history.

 

Sure

 

 

And they also have a suicide rate that's twice that of the United States. As I said, different countries and different cultures. Apples and oranges.

 

 

No, they are not. 

 

Make up your mind- are we including suicide in this conversation or not?

 

I'm a good listener- tell me if an intruder breaks into your home what scenari would place it outside the four listed below?  1) both you and the intruder are unarmed 2)you are armed and the intruder is not 3)the intruder is armed and you are not 4)both you and the intruder are armed.

 

. But ask yourself whether you really believe that the government needs to know your medical history.

 

Not a problem. 

[Ghost of Electricity]

I suggest that the 2nd Amenment historically made sense.  It was written fresh after the War for Independence, which was fought mainly by militia--farmers with guns.  The founding fathers wanted a sort of insurance policy to prevent tyranny, guns in the hands of the citizenry had recently done just that.  The secondary function was personal security, which made sense in the frontier lands which could not practicably support any police force.

 

That was the 18th century, a century which accepted slavery and the subjugation of women as a matter of course.  Thankfully, on those issues we managed to progess, even changing the constitution (the 13th and 19th Amendments) to achieve this.  The founding fathers allowed for constitutional changes because they realized that times change.  

 

The historical reasons which made the 2nd Amendment appropriate in the 18th century are no longer true-the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.

 

Indeed, you could even say that it threatens other of our constitutional rights.  The preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Given that there are 88 guns for every 100 Americans, and that Americans have the highest gun-related homicide rate in the developed world, I suggest that an individuals 2nd Amendment right to bear arms comes into conflict with everyone's communal right to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare."  The question follows- when we have to choose between an individuals right and the rights of a society as a whole, which is more important?

 

I say the rights of society as a whole.

[Hixter]

Hixter, I say with all the sincerity I can muster, you are the poster child for the NRA. And I think people like you make our country less safe -- because you seem to think that any laws regulating your precious guns are wrong. Grow the f up.

No, I'm just a citizen expressing my views -- with a little more politeness. And why the continuing assertions that I don't support any gun laws despite my repeated statements to the contrary?

 

Make up your mind- are we including suicide in this conversation or not?

Suicides have no place in a discussion of gun violence, but when Japan was given as an example of a country with little gun crime I stated that the nations' societies were very different and pointed out that Japan's suicide rate is twice ours as an example of the very different morals and traditions held by the two populations.

 

 

I'm a good listener- tell me if an intruder breaks into your home what scenari would place it outside the four listed below?  1) both you and the intruder are unarmed 2)you are armed and the intruder is not 3)the intruder is armed and you are not 4)both you and the intruder are armed.

And then you went on to break it down into the degrees of likelihood that it would end in a firearm death or injury. 

 

1) Such likelihoods are based on a Monday morning quarterback's ability to know the intruder's intentions, and whether or not he is armed, before choosing a response. As I said before, the victim has no way of knowing whether the intruder is a psychopath on a murderous rampage or a timid soul who would turn and run at the first sign of the homeowner. As the Boy Scouts say, "Be prepared."

 

2) Your scenarios focus on firearm injury and death while ignoring the fact that the intruder could be carrying any other type of weapon. Remember that bare hands and feet kill twice as many Americans as "assault" rifles, so even an unarmed is a deadly threat.

 

3) Most importantly, your scenarios seem to place equal importance on injuries and deaths for both the victim and the criminal. The only thing that counts is the safety of the victim, anything that happens to the intruder is a result of his criminal actions. Our laws don't consider the victim's actions to be a crime.

 

I say the rights of society as a whole.

I say the right of an individual to defend himself is the fundamental right of all mankind.

[Winston Legthigh]

Remember that bare hands and feet kill twice as many Americans as "assault" rifles, so even an unarmed is a deadly threat.

 

You've mentioned this stat before - you selectively remove handguns from the equation when making this statement. Why is that?

[Hixter]

You've mentioned this stat before - you selectively remove handguns from the equation when making this statement. Why is that?

Because legislators are considering an "assault" rifle ban, not a handgun ban.

[ih8music]

No, I'm just a citizen expressing my views -- with a little more politeness. And why the continuing assertions that I don't support any gun laws despite my repeated statements to the contrary?

 

I must have missed that. What gun control measures do you support? It sounds like you're against the most basic, and I'd say important, change -- closing the personal sale (gun show) loophole.

[Winston Legthigh]

Because legislators are considering an "assault" rifle ban, not a handgun ban.

Are you in favor of a handgun ban?

[KevinG]

It's quite clear that there are those who would take away all of our guns (see the above posts and cities like Chicago) and every time they chip away at magazine capacity and cosmetic items like pistol grips it erodes our Second Amendment rights just a little more. 

 

You can say it does, but really how does it?  The second amendment says you have the right to bear arms.  It does not specify what type of arms you can use.  I can't buy a rocket launcher so does that infringe on my rights?

 

 

And it really bothers me that the government officials that are drafting the new laws have exempted themselves from having to follow said laws.

 

 The exemption is for law enforcement, people who are fully trained and licensed to use the weapons.  It seems there is some paranoia creeping in.

 Law enforcement uses all kinds of stuff that the general citizenry cannot use and not uncommon.  

 

 

 

As I've said, I submit to them all the time. But ask yourself whether you really believe that the government needs to know your medical history.

 

Really apples and oranges.  There is no HIPA and medical privacy laws between a gun sell and buyer.  

 

And great you submit to background checks, this is not a personal attack on you.  I have said it before you sound like a responsible gun owner.  But not everyone is responsible like yourself.  As you know private gun sales do not require background checks, why not close that loophole and have every sale of a gun be tracked and background checks be performed?  Set up a system like the DMV.

 

 

But saying I can't own the most popular sporting rifle in the country is an infringement on my rights; it's no different than grandpa's old .22.

 

Just because something is popular and you like to shoot with it doesn't mean it is your right to own it.  So if the AR15 is no different from grandpa's old .22 what is the problem with owning grandpa's .22?

 

You have admitted before you don't need an AR15.  The constitution is about the "needs" of its people.  I may like to yell fire in a crowded theatre, but that doesn't mean it is protected by my first amendment rights.  

[Lammycat]

This guy is still on the loose, huh? Crazy they can't catch him.

 

Anyway, guns don't kill people, bullets do.

[Tweedling]

Hixter, I think Billy Joel said it best.... "Don't go changin'....." sorry I have a horrible voice.

 

Man, as far as an intruder breaking into my home, I'd shoot him and I'm completely in the right in Texas....I think.

[Hixter]

I must have missed that. What gun control measures do you support? It sounds like you're against the most basic, and I'd say important, change -- closing the personal sale (gun show) loophole.

I support existing laws that make it illegal for mentally ill people, drug users and criminals to buy firearms, not adding more laws that impact the 99% of Americans who don't use their firearms to commit crimes while rolling off the backs of street criminals who ignore current laws and will do the same if new laws are enacted. Guns on the streets are obtained by 2 primary means: theft (already illegal) and personal sale. But we're not talking about gun show sales in most cases: the majority are purchased legally by straw buyers who pass background checks and then sell them to bad guys for a cash bonus. Such sales are already illegal and there is no reason to believe that Joe Gangster will suddenly feel compelled to comply with a new law.

 

Are you in favor of a handgun ban?

No.

 

I can't buy a rocket launcher so does that infringe on my rights?

Why do people always bring up rocket launchers? 

 

The exemption is for law enforcement, people who are fully trained and licensed to use the weapons.  It seems there is some paranoia creeping in.

No, it allows government officials (such as Senator Feinstein) to own weapons that I'm not allowed to own. I'm licensed to carry and use firearms and I'll guarantee you that I have more training (via the Army) than Senator Feinstein.

 

This guy is still on the loose, huh? Crazy they can't catch him.

With any luck he's dead and frozen stiff up in Big Bear.

[KevinG]

Why do people always bring up rocket launchers? 

 

It is a simple an honest question to try to point out the ridiculous nature of the pro gun argument "need" for assault and military weapons.  

 

I bet a rocket launcher would be fun to shoot, I think it would fulfill my needs to shoot whatever I like when I hunt or whatever.  I want a rocket launcher.  Why can't I buy a rocket launcher?  Isn't the government infringing on my 2nd amendment rights by not letting me buy a rocket launcher?

 

You have said yourself you don't need an assault rifle.  But limiting your access is infringing on your rights.  What is the difference with a rocket launcher? 

[Hixter]

What is the difference with a rocket launcher? 

It's not a handgun or rifle, for starters.

[KevinG]

It's not a handgun or rifle, for starters.

 

Last I checked the 2nd amendment does not read this:

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as long as the arms are only handguns and rifles." 

 

I said before, I feel that a rocket launcher would be best for my needs.  So again, why can't buy one?