Please insure your 2nd amendment rights!

[M14 Shooter]

I’m sorry. I misread your post. Okay. Didn’t you tell me that car ownership is a privilege? Therefore, the comparison is faulty. We have restrictions for idiot drivers

I agree!!!

We should treat gun use/ownership -exactly- the way we treat car use/ownership.

How can you NOT like that idea?

 

[M14 Shooter]

After that, tell us about the serial numbers.

Yes -- that's the mistake Matt made some time ago.
I was simply making fun of him for it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings

Simply put: guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense.

Utterly irrelevant.

You don't need fire a gun, much less actually kill someone with it, to effectively use it in self-defense.

Therefore, any 'statistic' that relies on the number of times a gun is used to kill/injure someone in self-defense is meaningless.

 

[Shogun]

OBJECTIVE: Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide. METHODS: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas. RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.



I think the method is mucho flawed anyway.

1. Clearly, they tested urban environments only. I would argue that the rate of occurrence of the four variables compared in this study happen at variable rates among different environments; rural, suburban, etc.. I would bet that considering the population of gun owners that fall outside strictly urban areas would have resulted in a wildly different outcome. Crime, and the necessity for self defense, isn't only a rural experience and certainly isn't uniform across environment.

2. unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide... I wonder know long knives would survive if we compared how Each Individual Knife was used in cutting food (what it's used for) versus three of four other random acts that people use them more. I would be interested to know why Suicide was added to the list. Would the authors make the same inference to those who keep sharp objects, sleeping pills, and rope in their homes? All of these items could be used for suicide. In fact, statistics might have even suggested that more people use ROPE to hang themselves than for tying the truck of the car down! I mean, how often does that happen, anyway? Does this make Rope dangerous? Criminal Assault or Homicide? Certainly, the strictly URBAN consideration jacks this number up and it, in no way, reflects the population of handgun owners as projected. I guess I just wonder how many goofy compared variables was added until necessary results were achieved.

3. Is the comparative frequency of specific use infer anything really? My aunt only uses a punchbowl twice a year and leaves it on the shelf an easy majority of the year... Does this make the punchbowl any less necessary during Thanksgiving and Christmas? I have jumper cables in my car even though I hope to never have to use them. if I compare the frequency I use them versus the frequency that I have my car inspected, serviced at the shop, and tended with home care can I rationalize getting rid of them? How about that spare tire?

4. Why was the study interval staggered among the three sample cities? 12 months in one and 18 months in two?

5. Are those thirteen shootings NOT worth having guns around? I know what I'd say if I were one of the thirteen.. I'm pretty sure I know what they would say if they were one too. Better yet:

6. Where in this study is it attempted to factor in gunowners who have successfully used their handgun to scare off criminals without having to shoot them? Is EVERY occasion of deterrence reported? Is every vehicle accident that doesn't result in injury reported? Did he go door to door in every city asking about histories of self defense? The FACT that a significant portion of this 13 examples of self-defense ARE FROM COPS convey a total lack of broad consideration for occurances beyond what he could easily quantify. Without a more accurate description of gun use as a criminal deterant it is a joke to use his projected results as anything more than the Alfred Kinsey equivalent to guns rights.

 

[Shogun]

I’m sorry. I misread your post. Okay. Didn’t you tell me that car ownership is a privilege? Therefore, the comparison is faulty. We have restrictions for idiot drivers. How about make rules to limit gun ownership for idiotic shooters. If someone accidentally shoots an innocent person each week for 5 months, should he continue to be allowed to own a gun?

Your comparison between car owners and gun owners makes no sense.

OWNING a car is a right.

DRIVING is a privilege.

Indeed, you have restrictions on DRIVING... not on OWNING a car.

We already have restrictions on SHOOTING the gun... It's already illegal for me to shoot another person. OWNING a gun is no more the causal of homicide than OWNING a car is Causal for drunk driving. SHOOTING the gun at someone is already as illegal as DRINKING AND DRIVING. OWNING each does not cause criminal behaviour. USING each illegally is already illegal.

 

[ReillyT]

Your comparison between car owners and gun owners makes no sense.

OWNING a car is a right.

DRIVING is a privilege.

Indeed, you have restrictions on DRIVING... not on OWNING a car.

We already have restrictions on SHOOTING the gun... It's already illegal for me to shoot another person. OWNING a gun is no more the causal of homicide than OWNING a car is Causal for drunk driving. SHOOTING the gun at someone is already as illegal as DRINKING AND DRIVING. OWNING each does not cause criminal behaviour. USING each illegally is already illegal.

His analogy isn't perfect, but it makes more sense than you are giving him credit for. There are rules of conduct when driving, and then there is the right to drive at all. When someone has shown themself incapable (or we believe them incapable for other reasons) of following the rules of conduct when driving, we deprive them of their right to drive at all.

I believe he is saying that when someone has shown themself incapable (or we believe them incapable for other reasons) of following the rules of conduct with respect to the handling of guns, we should deprive them of the right to handle guns at all - including the right to own and possess them.

I think the analogy works okay. One might get caught up on the whole right vs. privilege question, but that wasn't really the point of his analogy. It is a separate question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe he is saying that when someone has shown themself incapable (or we believe them incapable for other reasons) of following the rules of conduct with respect to the handling of guns, we should deprive them of the right to handle guns at all - including the right to own and possess them.

We already have this.
Felons are banned from owning and using firearms.

 

[Shogun]

and, in accordance with current law, when a gun owner proves that they are incapable of responsibility by using their weapon to kill, rob, assult, etc then they will become felons and will have their gun rights revoked...

which is the EXACT gun version of the "if you are not responsible with your car then you can drive" line of logic.


Tell me, if I get 9 drunk driving tickets and have my license revoked... CAN I STILL OWN A CAR?

it's not a different question. It's the same criteria applied uniformly to cars and guns. I can still own a car even if my privilage of driving has been revoked. I cannot own a gun if I've proven that I will use it to kill someone. Like driving laws, these are the laws in place... not some vindictive anti-gun hardon for accidents. Would you lose your license for driving sober and losing control of your car that resulted in manslaughter?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Tell me, if I get 9 drunk driving tickets and cannot drive... CAN I STILL OWN A CAR?

yes.

 

[ReillyT]

and, in accordance with current law, when a gun owner proves that they are incapable of responsibility by using their weapon to kill, rob, assult, etc then they will become felons and will have their gun rights revoked...

which is the EXACT gun version of the "if you are not responsible with your car then you can drive" line of logic.


Tell me, if I get 9 drunk driving tickets and have my license revoked... CAN I STILL OWN A CAR?

it's not a different question. It's the same criteria applied uniformly to cars and guns. I can still own a car even if my privilage of driving has been revoked. I cannot own a gun if I've proven that I will use it to kill someone. Like driving laws, these are the laws in place... not some vindictive anti-gun hardon for accidents. Would you lose your license for driving sober and losing control of your car that resulted in manslaughter?

It is not a perfect analogy, but I still think it makes sense. He is analogizing the right to drive with the right to own a gun. I guess a better analogy would be the right to drive a car with the right to use a gun under any circumstances - no hunting, no range shooting, etc.

However, if his point was merely that it makes as much sense to apply a test of what is reasonable and prudent for the public in the arena of driving as it does in the arena of gun use (or ownership, since his analogy wasn't perfect), then I think his analogy makes sense. I grant you, a different analogy could have been even more... analogous.

 

[ReillyT]

and, in accordance with current law, when a gun owner proves that they are incapable of responsibility by using their weapon to kill, rob, assult, etc then they will become felons and will have their gun rights revoked...

which is the EXACT gun version of the "if you are not responsible with your car then you can drive" line of logic.


Tell me, if I get 9 drunk driving tickets and have my license revoked... CAN I STILL OWN A CAR?

it's not a different question. It's the same criteria applied uniformly to cars and guns. I can still own a car even if my privilage of driving has been revoked. I cannot own a gun if I've proven that I will use it to kill someone. Like driving laws, these are the laws in place... not some vindictive anti-gun hardon for accidents. Would you lose your license for driving sober and losing control of your car that resulted in manslaughter?

Actually, his analogy works better than I initially thought, if you consider the fact that it is easier to identify those who are driving without a license than it is to identify those who are using a gun which they shouldn't, unless you start having separate licenses for gun ownership and gun use. I can roll through a stop sign and be pulled over by the police, and then it will become clear that I am driving without a license. I can't think of an analogous situation where law enforcement has a means to identify those who are allowed to own guns, but not to use them... except maybe in the provision of hunting licenses (although the process for obtaining one would have to be changed).

 

[Shogun]

well, we can agree to disagree whether his analogy makes sense.

There is no right to drive. There IS a right to own firearms.

Driving is a privilege. Owning a gun is a specific right mentioned in the bill of rights.


If I break the laws while driving and get busted I pay the legal price.
If I use a gun to shoot someone while robbing them then I pay the legal price.


If I have an accident while driving I can still drive and own a car.
If I have an accident with a gun I can still own and shoot guns.


His position makes no sense outside of the anti-gun crowd.

We already have tests for what is reasonable and prudent behaviour. They are called laws. ie, the law against murdering people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, his analogy works better than I initially thought, if you consider the fact that it is easier to identify those who are driving without a license than it is to identify those who are using a gun which they shouldn't,

No. Its not

-You stop someone driving a car, you run their record, you find they dont have a license, you arrest them.
-You stop someone that has a gun, you run their record, you find they are a felon, you arrest them.

Same thing.

 

[ReillyT]

No. Its not

-You stop someone driving a car, you run their record, you find they dont have a license, you arrest them.
-You stop someone that has a gun, you run their record, you find they are a felon, you arrest them.

Same thing.

But driving is accompanied by a myriad of rules that lend to the possibility of being pulled over by the police - even from minor infractions with little risk of danger. Regulation in the use of guns is harder to monitor. Since there isn't a separate license that sets out when one is allowed to use a gun versus when one is merely allowed to own a gun, there is no basis for checking whether someone who is going hunting or going to a shooting range is allowed to use their weapon. The only means of monitoring we currently have are with respect to gun ownership (licenses), which we aren't talking about in this scenario where there is no assumption that the potential owner is a felon. If there were law enforcement officials or checks in hunting areas or shooting ranges, you would be right.

Even as a separate matter, if we are speaking about felons (and it wasn't my impression that this is what MM was speaking to), the grounds to conduct a search of a person are much more limited than the grounds to ask for a license at a routine traffic stop.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But driving is accompanied by a myriad of rules that lend to the possibility of being pulled over by the police - even from minor infractions with little risk of danger.

So is gun ownership. There are a LOT of things you cannot legally do with a gun, just as with a car.

The fact remains:
-You stop someone driving a car, you run their record, you find they dont have a license, you arrest them.
-You stop someone that has a gun, you run their record, you find they are a felon, you arrest them.

Since there isn't a separate license that sets out when one is allowed to use a gun versus when one is merely allowed to own a gun, there is no basis for checking whether someone who is going hunting or going to a shooting range is allowed to use their weapon.

So what?
In both cases, you have to have a reason to stop someone, which is usually them breaking a law. Engaging in a legal act such hunting or merely driving down the road isnt sufficient reason to stop someone in either case.

The only means of monitoring we currently have are with respect to gun ownership (licenses), which we aren't talking about in this scenario where there is no assumption that the potential owner is a felon. If there were law enforcement officials or checks in hunting areas or shooting ranges, you would be right.

Police do not pull people over for obeying the law.
Unless it is illegal for someone to be shooting wherever.whenever they are shooting, then there's no reason to check to see if they are legally able to have a gun.

Even as a separate matter, if we are speaking about felons (and it wasn't my impression that this is what MM was speaking to)...

Yes. MM wants to remove rights of people that HE deems "irresponsible", regardless of if they have actually broken a law or not.

the grounds to conduct a search of a person are much more limited than the grounds to ask for a license at a routine traffic stop.

In BOTH instances, there must be reason to believe that a law that has been broken. Just showing up in your duck blind with your shotgun dioesnt meet this standard.

 

[ReillyT]

So is gun ownership. There are a LOT of things you cannot legally do with a gun, just as with a car.

The fact remains:
-You stop someone driving a car, you run their record, you find they dont have a license, you arrest them.
-You stop someone that has a gun, you run their record, you find they are a felon, you arrest them.

All true. The difference is that the police have many more means/opportunities to stop someone to determine if they have a license.

So what?
In both cases, you have to have a reason to stop someone, which is usually them breaking a law. Engaging in a legal act such hunting or merely driving down the road isnt sufficient reason to stop someone in either case.

Partially true. Police actually do have the right in some circumstances to stop people and check their licenses at drunk driving or license checkpoints (at least in some states), regardless of whether they have broken the law. More significantly though, there are so many driving regulations that we all get stopped at some point for some minor infraction. Hence, there is greater opportunity to determine if someone is driving without a license.

Police do not pull people over for obeying the law.

Mostly right - police can sometimes stop you on the roadways even if you haven't broken the law.

Unless it is illegal for someone to be shooting wherever.whenever they are shooting, then there's no reason to check to see if they are legally able to have a gun.

Absolutely right. But we are talking about MM's analogy relating to people who have shown that they are not responsible with their guns - even if they haven't committed a felony. In these cases, the reason to anologize driving privileges (as opposed to car owning privileges) to gun ownership is that under our current system, it would be very difficult to determine if someone was hunting or range shooting who shouldn't be. This all deals with his analogy.

Yes. MM wants to remove rights of people that HE deems "irresponsible", regardless of if they have actually broken a law or not.

That is also my interpretation of what he is saying, although I don't think he would let it rest on his personal opinion as to individual people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All true. The difference is that the police have many more means/opportunities to stop someone to determine if they have a license.

And that's only because of the nature of the beast -- driving, after all, is a far more usual and intricate activity than shooting. This doesnt at ALL create a reason to stop someone with a gun simply because they have a gun.

Partially true. Police actually do have the right in some circumstances to stop people and check their licenses at drunk driving or license checkpoints (at least in some states), regardless of whether they have broken the law

I would argue that they don't. They're stopping people 'just in case'.
They DO it, but its no different than stopping a person walking down the street 'just in case' they are committing a crime -- something virtually everyone opposes.

More significantly though, there are so many driving regulations that we all get stopped at some point for some minor infraction. Hence, there is greater opportunity to determine if someone is driving without a license.

Again, that's only because of the nature of the beast.

Absolutely right. But we are talking about MM's analogy relating to people who have shown that they are not responsible with their guns - even if they haven't committed a felony. In these cases, the reason to anologize driving privileges (as opposed to car owning privileges) to gun ownership is that under our current system, it would be very difficult to determine if someone was hunting or range shooting who shouldn't be. This all deals with his analogy.

And is a large part of why his analogy isnt very good.

That is also my interpretation of what he is saying, although I don't think he would let it rest on his personal opinion as to individual people.

He's shown otherwise.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All true. The difference is that the police have many more means/opportunities to stop someone to determine if they have a license.




Partially true. Police actually do have the right in some circumstances to stop people and check their licenses at drunk driving or license checkpoints (at least in some states), regardless of whether they have broken the law. More significantly though, there are so many driving regulations that we all get stopped at some point for some minor infraction. Hence, there is greater opportunity to determine if someone is driving without a license.




Mostly right - police can sometimes stop you on the roadways even if you haven't broken the law.



Absolutely right. But we are talking about MM's analogy relating to people who have shown that they are not responsible with their guns - even if they haven't committed a felony. In these cases, the reason to anologize driving privileges (as opposed to car owning privileges) to gun ownership is that under our current system, it would be very difficult to determine if someone was hunting or range shooting who shouldn't be. This all deals with his analogy.





That is also my interpretation of what he is saying, although I don't think he would let it rest on his personal opinion as to individual people.

Simply wrong. Unless your now going to suggest the police randomly stop people and strip search them and any vehicle or bag they are carrying. Or better yet a random search of houses looking for drunk gun owners. The situations are completely different.

Lets get specific, if Fred gets in his car without a license and drives he only gets caught if he breaks a law or happens to get stopped by some legal police blockade. At which point he has to provide license and a check determines he has none. Further JUST not having one just means you can't drive your car away but are free to walk off. Even if he is driving under a suspended license he generally won't be arrested, he will just receive a ticket and be sent a foot on his way.

If Fred carries his M1 Carbine into town chances are JUST HAVING it displayed will result in a cop stopping him and questioning him and running him for a violation. Now if they discover he can not own weapons they do not just confiscate the weapon and send him on his merry way with a ticket and court Date. They arrest his ass.

Same with a random car stop, if they search and find a weapon they will run him and find he is not allowed to own a weapon and he is ARRESTED. The act of driving a car without a license or with a suspense or revocation does not result in an automatic arrest. The possession of a firearm illegally results in an AUTOMATIC arrest.

 

[ReillyT]

And that's only because of the nature of the beast -- driving, after all, is a far more usual and intricate activity than shooting. This doesnt at ALL create a reason to stop someone with a gun simply because they have a gun.

I didn't suggest it did. It is true that driving and shooting a gun are very different. More importantly, police have different means to monitor them. That is why I believe his analogy is reasonable.

I would argue that they don't. They're stopping people 'just in case'.
They DO it, but its no different than stopping a person walking down the street 'just in case' they are committing a crime -- something virtually everyone opposes..

You can argue that they don't have the right, and as a matter of what the law should be, I will agree with you. However, that is not the law as it actually is.

And is a large part of why his analogy isnt very good..

This is where we disagree. However, we have spent a lot of time debating the value of what is admittedly, an imperfect analogy. At this point, we might as well just stop. The analogy isn't nearly important as the basic question: should there be restrictions on gun ownership for people who have not committed intentional crimes? I am undecided on this, and I doubt I can add to what has already been discussed many times in so many other threads.

 

[ReillyT]

Simply wrong. Unless your now going to suggest the police randomly stop people and strip search them and any vehicle or bag they are carrying. Or better yet a random search of houses looking for drunk gun owners. The situations are completely different.

Lets get specific, if Fred gets in his car without a license and drives he only gets caught if he breaks a law or happens to get stopped by some legal police blockade. At which point he has to provide license and a check determines he has none. Further JUST not having one just means you can't drive your car away but are free to walk off. Even if he is driving under a suspended license he generally won't be arrested, he will just receive a ticket and be sent a foot on his way.

If Fred carries his M1 Carbine into town chances are JUST HAVING it displayed will result in a cop stopping him and questioning him and running him for a violation. Now if they discover he can not own weapons they do not just confiscate the weapon and send him on his merry way with a ticket and court Date. They arrest his ass.

Same with a random car stop, if they search and find a weapon they will run him and find he is not allowed to own a weapon and he is ARRESTED. The act of driving a car without a license or with a suspense or revocation does not result in an automatic arrest. The possession of a firearm illegally results in an AUTOMATIC arrest.

I don't know what you think I am completely wrong about. In fact, I am not sure what this post is talking about. I wasn't suggesting anything like what you appear to think I was suggesting. The debate only focused on the appropriateness of an analogy that MM used. I can understand if you might have misconstrued the last series of posts. It would have been easy to misinterpret them unless you went back a few pages and read through them all.