The second amendment to the constitution of the united states

[dannymax]

The only thing that I dont agree with on the gun death tally, is that it shows total deaths since Sandy Hook, and not broken down into different catagories. Justifiable homicide...IE Police shooting a burgler, or a home owner shooting a burgler shouldnt be on this list. Accidental homicide...or homicide in the commission of a felony, should be 2 seperate catagories.

I dont disagree on the total number, but I do wonder if all the catagories were lumped in together to achieve a higher number for a higher "shock" value.

It's all about shock value, that's the purpose of the whole exercise to begin with. Why 'since Sandy Hook'? Because the name Sandy Hook is synonymous with senseless gun violence....that creates the mind set of the reader.

If you look at each individual instance you will find the standard mix iof murder/suicides, domestics, gang & drug related activity, mental issues, etc., etc......nowhere do I see where funding a research group will provide 'the magic bullet' fix for these deaths. Tell you what...."don't do drugs, don't drink in excess and try to not go crazy"...there, send the check to Dannymax @ BRC!!

Let's fund something meaningful like a study on "Screwdriver Deaths since the merger of Stanley Tool & Dewalt" :biglaugh:

 

[a113ycat]

I read this and thought that it makes a very good point.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gi.../2013/04/01/id/497315?s=al&promo_code=12FEE-1

 

[85 MAX-fan]

Sorry I thought I was? Let me make it more direct.



Yes. If one thing has become clear in the months since these debates started, it's that neither side has much to stand on with their arguments. We're talking about clip sizes and weapon classification without a clue as to the actual effects. Just hypothetical scenarios.




Are some sales still subject to background checks while others are not? Yes? They shouldn't be.



No not really. As it stands I haven't heard a good fix. That's again, why I'm in favor of funded research to see if somebody can propose something with legs to stand on.




Here they are charted on a map.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

I don't have a more official source as those are compiled annually. Names, dates, locations, and counts for each instance is pretty solid though. Each one has a source to it's original news story as well.



Because I never said anything about eliminating rights. Just that awareness campaigns, universally applied background checks, and funding more research on the topic are all good ideas.

:edit:


Your turn to show some sources for those numbers.

Source for my numbers? I will repeat it for you again, John Lott's research made into the book entitled "More Guns Less Crime". I know it doesn't "feel good" to digest thousands of statistics and hundreds of pages of opposing facts but get a copy and read it. Unlike a socialist BLOG that compile numbers from TWEETS(!), this has real factual references.
I for one do not understand what research you would find beneficial to understand the actions of a homicidal maniac, nor do I wan't my money spent to create another source of revenue for whichever "professional" the current leadership decides to include in the scam.

Lanza was mentally ill, murdered to obtain his firearm, and despite all of the laws on the books he ignored each and everyone and killed anyway. Despite this you want more laws that have been widely accepted to ACCOMPLISH NOTHING TO PREVENT THESE CRIMES.

I will ask AGAIN, doesn't it bother you that the poiticians proposing the destruction of our second ammendment rights ADMIT the laws will not prevent another Newtown type murder spree?

 

[95spfldmax]

Now we're talkin!!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/02/us/georgia-gun-requirement/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[ZackDaniels]

Source for my numbers? I will repeat it for you again, John Lott's research made into the book entitled "More Guns Less Crime". I know it doesn't "feel good" to digest thousands of statistics and hundreds of pages of opposing facts but get a copy and read it. Unlike a socialist BLOG that compile numbers from TWEETS(!), this has real factual references.
I for one do not understand what research you would find beneficial to understand the actions of a homicidal maniac, nor do I wan't my money spent to create another source of revenue for whichever "professional" the current leadership decides to include in the scam.

Lanza was mentally ill, murdered to obtain his firearm, and despite all of the laws on the books he ignored each and everyone and killed anyway. Despite this you want more laws that have been widely accepted to ACCOMPLISH NOTHING TO PREVENT THESE CRIMES.

I will ask AGAIN, doesn't it bother you that the poiticians proposing the destruction of our second ammendment rights ADMIT the laws will not prevent another Newtown type murder spree?

So your source for thousands of crimes prevented thanks to gun ownership since the shootings is a 10 year old book? One with plenty of reputable opposition no less? Followed by a side of contempt for any stats and research of the same nature said book is based on? Ok.

I admitted the source wasn't perfect, but as more reliable sources are not compiled that quickly it's as good as it gets. Each TWEET reposted on the BLOG also has a linked SOURCE of a NEWS STORY. With actual NAMES and LOCATIONS of the affected. It may not be up to your high standards of a 10 year old book that's been openly referred to as junk science, but it has enough to stand on that it can't be waved away entirely, especially not for the purpose with which I brought it up.

That purpose was in direct response to your question on of if I felt research and awareness campaigns were a good use of money. Yes, an awareness campaign would go a ways in preventing accidental death due to the negligence of others, which happens regularly and has had multiple cases reported since this topic gained public attention. The research might prove fruitful in helping identify a future Lanza before their actions splash across headlines, but it might not. Such is the nature of research. There's no guarantee of results, but at least it can be done without writing some laws that seem like they might help and finding out they don't because they were based on false assumptions.

 

[a113ycat]

Well obama went to the next level and now we are under UN regulations....or so it may seem...when o when do we rip this dictator from the white house and drag him through the streets???

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/2/un-passes-international-arms-regulation-treaty/

 

[a113ycat]

Texas has drawn a line in the sand with this traitor dictator obama ******...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/2/texas-ag-obama-ill-sue-if-un-arms-treaty-ratified/

 

[85 MAX-fan]

So your source for thousands of crimes prevented thanks to gun ownership since the shootings is a 10 year old book? One with plenty of reputable opposition no less? Followed by a side of contempt for any stats and research of the same nature said book is based on? Ok.

Have you read the book?? Checked the factual references?

I admitted the source wasn't perfect, but as more reliable sources are not compiled that quickly it's as good as it gets. Each TWEET reposted on the BLOG also has a linked SOURCE of a NEWS STORY. With actual NAMES and LOCATIONS of the affected. It may not be up to your high standards of a 10 year old book that's been openly referred to as junk science, but it has enough to stand on that it can't be waved away entirely, especially not for the purpose with which I brought it up.
Junk science by who? HCI?? LOL!
That purpose was in direct response to your question on of if I felt research and awareness campaigns were a good use of money. Yes, an awareness campaign would go a ways in preventing accidental death due to the negligence of others, which happens regularly and has had multiple cases reported since this topic gained public attention. The research might prove fruitful in helping identify a future Lanza before their actions splash across headlines, but it might not. Such is the nature of research. There's no guarantee of results, but at least it can be done without writing some laws that seem like they might help and finding out they don't because they were based on false assumptions.

I will ask AGAIN, doesn't it bother you that the poiticians proposing the destruction of our second ammendment rights ADMIT the laws will not prevent another Newtown type murder spree?

 

[SpecOps13]

I will ask AGAIN, doesn't it bother you that the poiticians proposing the destruction of our second ammendment rights ADMIT the laws will not prevent another Newtown type murder spree?

It bothers me a great deal but with each passing day, more Americans wake up to the reality that this isn't about Newtown. It was about gaining an inch toward taking our guns away. Thanx to a growing number of Senators and Congressmen it appears that not much legislation will get passed, Thank God.

 

[dannymax]

It bothers me a great deal but with each passing day, more Americans wake up to the reality that this isn't about Newtown. It was about gaining an inch toward taking our guns away. Thanx to a growing number of Senators and Congressmen it appears that not much legislation will get passed, Thank God.

Roger THAT! unk:

Newtown was simply the 'crisis du jour,' good opportunity to pass around a little Kool-Aid....and a shitload of it got consumed up here in NY! :bang head:

 

[85 MAX-fan]

So your source for thousands of crimes prevented thanks to gun ownership since the shootings is a 10 year old book? One with plenty of reputable opposition no less? Followed by a side of contempt for any stats and research of the same nature said book is based on? Ok.

I admitted the source wasn't perfect, but as more reliable sources are not compiled that quickly it's as good as it gets. Each TWEET reposted on the BLOG also has a linked SOURCE of a NEWS STORY. With actual NAMES and LOCATIONS of the affected. It may not be up to your high standards of a 10 year old book that's been openly referred to as junk science, but it has enough to stand on that it can't be waved away entirely, especially not for the purpose with which I brought it up.

That purpose was in direct response to your question on of if I felt research and awareness campaigns were a good use of money. Yes, an awareness campaign would go a ways in preventing accidental death due to the negligence of others, which happens regularly and has had multiple cases reported since this topic gained public attention. The research might prove fruitful in helping identify a future Lanza before their actions splash across headlines, but it might not. Such is the nature of research. There's no guarantee of results, but at least it can be done without writing some laws that seem like they might help and finding out they don't because they were based on false assumptions.

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

 

[85 MAX-fan]

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]


* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

? 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
? 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" ? 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

 

[Rollie]

Sure is a good thing we let so many of them out last week due to the " sequester " . Gotta get those odds back to where it is still profitable to be a criminal. These *******s in Washington don't give a rats rear end about their country. It's all about control and to reduce the independence or individual status of half the population. They want all of us to be in groups or identified as the rich , the religious , the republicans , the homophobes , the anti-immigrationists , the gun toting , as its easier to sell class warfare to the uninformed and usefull idiots out there who suck off the gov't **** from welfare recepients , illegals , criminals to the Congress & the President. The country is standing still economically and he's taking more vacations , flying with and without her and the kids at gosh knows what rate of spending our money , spending sprees to the roof , Congress can't or more likely won't do anything but print and spend more of our money while the country burns. " Let 'em eat cake " seems to be their motto , as opposed to individuals , because individuals tend to take care of themselves , with out the " help " of the gov't. , both financially and security wise. We don't need the gov't to protect us , ie ; control us.

Control the guns , health care , military and the banks , you control the country.

 

[a113ycat]

Sure is a good thing we let so many of them out last week due to the " sequester " . Gotta get those odds back to where it is still profitable to be a criminal. These *******s in Washington don't give a rats rear end about their country. It's all about control and to reduce the independence or individual status of half the population. They want all of us to be in groups or identified as the rich , the religious , the republicans , the homophobes , the anti-immigrationists , the gun toting , as its easier to sell class warfare to the uninformed and usefull idiots out there who suck off the gov't **** from welfare recepients , illegals , criminals to the Congress & the President. The country is standing still economically and he's taking more vacations , flying with and without her and the kids at gosh knows what rate of spending our money , spending sprees to the roof , Congress can't or more likely won't do anything but print and spend more of our money while the country burns. " Let 'em eat cake " seems to be their motto , as opposed to individuals , because individuals tend to take care of themselves , with out the " help " of the gov't. , both financially and security wise. We don't need the gov't to protect us , ie ; control us.

Control the guns , health care , military and the banks , you control the country.

Truer words not spoken... However it is now no longer ok to use the phrase "illegal immigrant" as it is hurtful to the immigrant.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/il.../2013/04/02/id/497533?s=al&promo_code=1303C-1

:ummm::confused2::ummm::confused2:

 

[ZackDaniels]

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]


* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

? 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
? 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" ? 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

I thought you didn't trust the CDC to gather accurate stats? I thought the increase in gun ownership and concealed carry was a clear cause for crime rate drops over the last decade? If you're right, a fresh round of funding for new studies should only strengthen your case, and put the issue to bed. Why are you so opposed to this again?

That could be really good for the pro-gun argument, and especially if coupled with an awareness campaign that has a good chance of lowering gun related accidents by educating people how important it is to respect the weapons they own. What's the problem here?

I will ask AGAIN, doesn't it bother you that the poiticians proposing the destruction of our second ammendment rights ADMIT the laws will not prevent another Newtown type murder spree?

The Cali legislation bothers me plenty, but that's not to do with the federal legislation which will provide new studies and an awareness campaign. They're different things. I've answered straight to both numerous times now. I'm for the federal level stuff, and think the local Cali and NY stuff is overstepping. You can keep asking but the answers won't change without something new to go on.

For the U.N. thing - it's not much to get panicked about. It can't supersede domestic laws, but those could be changed to comply if it's thought necessary. Those laws that would need changing would be subject to the same process of changing laws, regardless of purpose. It might have an effect on the cost of foreign guns and ammo though.

 

[ZackDaniels]

Truer words not spoken... However it is now no longer ok to use the phrase "illegal immigrant" as it is hurtful to the immigrant.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/il.../2013/04/02/id/497533?s=al&promo_code=1303C-1

:ummm::confused2::ummm::confused2:

PC ********.

"You're next, @nytimes, @latimes, @washingtonpost, @WSJ. No human being is illegal," Jose Antonio Vargas of the group Define America tweeted.

They are if they're breaking laws :rofl_200:. Cut in line? I'm going to call you names. 'Illegal' would probably be nicer than most of the things I could think of. What a bunch of pricks.

 

[Redbone]

I think the name "Undocumented Democrat" could be a apt definition these days, Jay Leno might have something there!:rofl_200::rofl_200::rofl_200:

 

[Rollie]

Jay borrowed the term from Rush. but he won't have it long. The left doesn't like jokes on their side of the aisle. Jay goes down the middle and they don't like that. He's gone ....... again. Capitalism brought him back last time when nobody watched Conan. They are gonna try Jimmy Fallon this time.

 

[85 MAX-fan]

I thought you didn't trust the CDC to gather accurate stats? I thought the increase in gun ownership and concealed carry was a clear cause for crime rate drops over the last decade? If you're right, a fresh round of funding for new studies should only strengthen your case, and put the issue to bed. Why are you so opposed to this again?

I don't like the CDC numbers. I posted them for you because apparently you feel that the study I referenced is useless (even though you didn't read it). Regardless, the numbers I posted from numerous sources show people use firearms to prevent THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of crimes every year. Now you may wish to say its "only a quarter of a million times or year rather than 2.5 million". But I do not personally feel the need to WASTE MILLIONS of tax payer dollars on a concept that is already widely understood. If you wish, I can keep posting more studies, data, resources etc, that all say the same. You surely don't believe people in the last ten years miraculously stopped defending themselves and now are willingly consenting to **** murder and robbery are you?

That could be really good for the pro-gun argument, and especially if coupled with an awareness campaign that has a good chance of lowering gun related accidents by educating people how important it is to respect the weapons they own. What's the problem here?

The problem is that they WON"T publish an objective study. They will funnel MY money to their chronnies that slant statistics to support their agenda. EXACTLY the way they lied about the true cost and implications of the new socialized health care. Once their objective is reached, and the facts come out it will be too late to stop the destruction of out constitutional rights.

The Cali legislation bothers me plenty, but that's not to do with the federal legislation which will provide new studies and an awareness campaign. They're different things. I've answered straight to both numerous times now. I'm for the federal level stuff, and think the local Cali and NY stuff is overstepping. You can keep asking but the answers won't change without something new to go on.

For the U.N. thing - it's not much to get panicked about. It can't supersede domestic laws, but those could be changed to comply if it's thought necessary. Those laws that would need changing would be subject to the same process of changing laws, regardless of purpose. It might have an effect on the cost of foreign guns and ammo though.

Actually ratification of some treaty doctrine DOES supercede our laws. And, it should bother you that our elected officials recently nearly DID vote to allow an external entity to again wreck our constitution.

 

[Rollie]

Quote of the century

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration.

Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future."​

- Adolf Hitler, 1935