Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on December 20, 2012, 09:29:43 PM

Quote from: goodabouthood on December 20, 2012, 04:46:39 PM
do whatever you need to do to relax.

Also, who gives a fuck what the % is that you seem to be so hung up on. You seem to be missing the more important # of 32,000 deaths. You're ok with that high a number of deaths by firearms?

That was good advise.  THanks!

As for the percentage I keep throwing out, I am just pointing out the the hugely vast number of gun sold in the US are not used to commit harm upon other people.  So much so that the 32,000 you point out (which is horrible in itself) is LESS than deaths by many other means, like death in vehicle accidents.

here is some more data regarding firearms use in crimes in 2011

murder - 8,538
robbery - 122,300
assault - 136,371

suicide - 19,182

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on December 20, 2012, 09:29:43 PM
If the incident in CT had involved a motorist purposely killing 26 people by running them over with an SUV, would you be calling for the ban or limitation on SUVs???  I doubt it.  None of would be...

well, that didn't happen and no we wouldn't.  of the many reasons i could list the main reason is that cars exist for many purposes.  the gun has one.  to kill.   another silly leap of logic.

Quote from: susep on December 20, 2012, 09:38:14 PM
I wonder how the framers would change the 2nd Amendment if they could have foreseen the chaos of their creation?

well it is certainly time to take a look at it ourselves.  the 2nd amendment is completely outdated, its uses in current society are completely irrational, and it is time for a major overhaul.

And I get pulled back in...

Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on December 20, 2012, 09:53:11 PM

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on December 20, 2012, 09:29:43 PM

Quote from: goodabouthood on December 20, 2012, 04:46:39 PM
do whatever you need to do to relax.

Also, who gives a fuck what the % is that you seem to be so hung up on. You seem to be missing the more important # of 32,000 deaths. You're ok with that high a number of deaths by firearms?

That was good advise.  THanks!

As for the percentage I keep throwing out, I am just pointing out the the hugely vast number of gun sold in the US are not used to commit harm upon other people.  So much so that the 32,000 you point out (which is horrible in itself) is LESS than deaths by many other means, like death in vehicle accidents.

here is some more data regarding firearms use in crimes in 2011

murder - 8,538
robbery - 122,300
assault - 136,371

suicide - 19,182

And its all tragic. 

Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on December 20, 2012, 09:53:11 PM

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on December 20, 2012, 09:29:43 PM
If the incident in CT had involved a motorist purposely killing 26 people by running them over with an SUV, would you be calling for the ban or limitation on SUVs???  I doubt it.  None of would be...

well, that didn't happen and no we wouldn't.  of the many reasons i could list the main reason is that cars exist for many purposes.  the gun has one.  to kill.   another silly leap of logic.

Which is why I tried to say "none of [us] would be".  Absolutely it's silly.  And we didn't think people would use airplanes as weapons and run them into building either, did we???  But I suppose that's another topic...  And again the analogy is silly; we will never ban air-flight...

And my use of a gun doesn't necessarily result in murder, as we've shown both in my percentage and you post stating that guns can also be used as an Intimidation Device, or a device to wound...  But you didn't note how it is also a Deterrent - you didn't list how many home invasions were stopped with the use of a gun in a defensive situation, or how many rapes were stopped, or muggings, etc.  Its a weapon, sure.  We all know what weapons are for...   

Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on December 20, 2012, 09:53:11 PM

Quote from: susep on December 20, 2012, 09:38:14 PM
I wonder how the framers would change the 2nd Amendment if they could have foreseen the chaos of their creation?

well it is certainly time to take a look at it ourselves.  the 2nd amendment is completely outdated, its uses in current society are completely irrational, and it is time for a major overhaul.

I don't think its outdated at all.  I think the Framers saw the importance of being able to defend your Rights as such to make it the 2nd Amendment, and not say the 1xth... 

And its quite another leap, but I wonder how we would feel about this if we lived in Syria and were actually fighting the Gov't???  Its totally left-field topic, though...  And belongs in the What-If Section, and not here...

As I've stated before in this thread, I'll support Gun Control to a point.  But as you can plainly see, I can't support a Ban. 

Have to go into the office for a while, then back to work on PH Transfers...  Got 7/25/91 Upgrade lined up!

Peace!  And don't try to rope me back in.

Terry

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on December 20, 2012, 10:43:39 PM
And I get pulled back in...

Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on December 20, 2012, 09:53:11 PM

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on December 20, 2012, 09:29:43 PM

Quote from: goodabouthood on December 20, 2012, 04:46:39 PM
do whatever you need to do to relax.

Also, who gives a fuck what the % is that you seem to be so hung up on. You seem to be missing the more important # of 32,000 deaths. You're ok with that high a number of deaths by firearms?

That was good advise.  THanks!

As for the percentage I keep throwing out, I am just pointing out the the hugely vast number of gun sold in the US are not used to commit harm upon other people.  So much so that the 32,000 you point out (which is horrible in itself) is LESS than deaths by many other means, like death in vehicle accidents.

here is some more data regarding firearms use in crimes in 2011

murder - 8,538
robbery - 122,300
assault - 136,371

suicide - 19,182

And its all tragic. 

Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on December 20, 2012, 09:53:11 PM

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on December 20, 2012, 09:29:43 PM
If the incident in CT had involved a motorist purposely killing 26 people by running them over with an SUV, would you be calling for the ban or limitation on SUVs???  I doubt it.  None of would be...

well, that didn't happen and no we wouldn't.  of the many reasons i could list the main reason is that cars exist for many purposes.  the gun has one.  to kill.   another silly leap of logic.

Which is why I tried to say "none of [us] would be".  Absolutely it's silly.  And we didn't think people would use airplanes as weapons and run them into building either, did we???  But I suppose that's another topic...  And again the analogy is silly; we will never ban air-flight...

And my use of a gun doesn't necessarily result in murder, as we've shown both in my percentage and you post stating that guns can also be used as an Intimidation Device, or a device to wound...  But you didn't note how it is also a Deterrent - you didn't list how many home invasions were stopped with the use of a gun in a defensive situation, or how many rapes were stopped, or muggings, etc.  Its a weapon, sure.  We all know what weapons are for...   

Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on December 20, 2012, 09:53:11 PM

Quote from: susep on December 20, 2012, 09:38:14 PM
I wonder how the framers would change the 2nd Amendment if they could have foreseen the chaos of their creation?

well it is certainly time to take a look at it ourselves.  the 2nd amendment is completely outdated, its uses in current society are completely irrational, and it is time for a major overhaul.

I don't think its outdated at all.  I think the Framers saw the importance of being able to defend your Rights as such to make it the 2nd Amendment, and not say the 1xth...

"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"

this was written in a time were there was no actual official federal army to defend against foreign enemies, rather there were state and local militias that worked together when need be.  in fact most of the founders were opposed to the whole idea of a federal army.  that didn't even become official official until WWII. so, we have a well regulated militia now.  if you would like to try and overthrow them ...good luck.

furthermore the definition of 'arms' has changed radically since.  at the time of this being written muskets and the brand new pistol were single fire and very inaccurate.  we all know what guns are capable of today.  a line needs to be drawn, and we are real late in drawing it.

i'd say just those two reasons alone makes it pretty outdated.

personal safety?  people with guns in their home are far more likely to be victims of a gunshot whether accidental or intentional.

Certainly, it's fair to say the framers could not have envisioned where firearms technology would be today. That's the problem with codifying something technology-centric into an enduring document like a constitution.

Now, I'm no constitutional scholar, but it sure seems that language in the Constitution is about as vague and broad as language in legislation tends to be specific and meticulous. I wonder if the framers didn't do this on purpose, believing that it is the legislature's role to hash out the particulars on an issue, and by leaving things broad that would allow room for legislatures and the judiciary to create and interpret laws according to the prevailing needs or wishes of the population, rather than locking everything in too tightly by a constitution that obviously will just get older and older.

I seriously thought I had heard it all, that there was no pro-gun argument that hasn't been said a million times.  Then, along comes a freshman Texas politician to prove me wrong.

Enjoy!

QuoteIncoming Texas State Rep. Kyle Kacal says guns don't kill people—ping-pong kills people.

"I've heard of people being killed playing ping-pong—ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns," he says. "Flat-screen TVs are injuring more kids today than anything."

Read more

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on December 20, 2012, 11:31:06 PM
I wonder if the framers didn't do this on purpose, believing that it is the legislature's role to hash out the particulars on an issue, and by leaving things broad that would allow room for legislatures and the judiciary to create and interpret laws according to the prevailing needs or wishes of the population, rather than locking everything in too tightly by a constitution that obviously will just get older and older.

You don't have to wonder; this is a general purpose of constitutional/charter law.

Quote from: ytowndan on December 21, 2012, 12:45:29 AM
I seriously thought I had heard it all, that there was no pro-gun argument that hasn't been said a million times.  Then, along comes a freshman Texas politician to prove me wrong.

Enjoy!

QuoteIncoming Texas State Rep. Kyle Kacal says guns don't kill people—ping-pong kills people.

"I've heard of people being killed playing ping-pong—ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns," he says. "Flat-screen TVs are injuring more kids today than anything."

Read more

twatts is actually a texas state rep?!? 

:wink:

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on December 20, 2012, 09:29:43 PM

Quote from: goodabouthood on December 20, 2012, 04:46:39 PM
do whatever you need to do to relax.

Also, who gives a fuck what the % is that you seem to be so hung up on. You seem to be missing the more important # of 32,000 deaths. You're ok with that high a number of deaths by firearms?

That was good advise.  THanks!

As for the percentage I keep throwing out, I am just pointing out the the hugely vast number of gun sold in the US are not used to commit harm upon other people.  So much so that the 32,000 you point out (which is horrible in itself) is LESS than deaths by many other means, like death in vehicle accidents.

If the incident in CT had involved a motorist purposely killing 26 people by running them over with an SUV, would you be calling for the ban or limitation on SUVs???  I doubt it.  None of would be...

I'm just trying to present guns as just another tool that can be used safely, and I'm trying to persuade you that these horrific incidents shouldn't make us all leap at the chance to throw away a Right we all have (if we don't actually "enjoy" it).

Terry


ETA,  I try to avoid these threads, and now you see why!!!  LOL!!!

I understand you are trying to use the percentages to make your point, but I would counter with how many lives are worth that freedom?     Are 20 children in 1 day too many?  What is that number, because this is a situation where to me the percentages aren't what is important.

As I stated earlier, I don't support a ban on all guns, but I do support a ban on assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and armor piercing bullets.  None of which are needed to hunt.

Many or our rights have limits, our speech is limited, our right to assemble is limited, freedom of the press is limited.  Why is it that so many are against what seem like reasonable controls on firearms.    What I stated above plus a background check for every weapons sale.    That's it, I don't want to go beyond that.

Pretty ironic that this arrived on my desk yesterday. It had been back ordered, waiting for the second edition printing.

http://www.dhs.gov/bips-07-primer-design-safe-school-projects-case-terrorist-attacks-and-school-shootings-2nd-edition

Memo to the "Arm Everyone Nuts"

QuoteDo Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.
Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don't stand up to scrutiny.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

I can't believe that on the 1 week anniversary of this tragedy the NRA came out and made that statement.  Blaming everything else, not even discussing assault weapons.

Political supporters were already proposing a discussion and a ban, they are about to see how fast long time supporters run from them.   Americans are too galvanized right now to tolerate a statement like that.    At least  show that you understand what happened.  The NRA does so much to train people on safety and prevent the average American from hurting themselves that you would think they would at least have the discussion. 

Quote from: Guyute on December 21, 2012, 11:54:31 AM
I can't believe that on the 1 week anniversary of this tragedy the NRA came out and made that statement.  Blaming everything else, not even discussing assault weapons.

Political supporters were already proposing a discussion and a ban, they are about to see how fast long time supporters run from them.   Americans are too galvanized right now to tolerate a statement like that.    At least  show that you understand what happened.  The NRA does so much to train people on safety and prevent the average American from hurting themselves that you would think they would at least have the discussion.

Exactly.

I just read the statement and barfed my lunch.

i don't know why I expected otherwise.

I'm sure you guys have seen it pointed out that there were two armed guards at Columbine High, right?

MOAR Guns!

If you're really weighing someone's right to shoot clips of ammo into a tree stump against the "relatively small percentage" of children who are "actually" shot in classrooms... well I don't know what to tell you.