Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Fishlore]

An interesting legal approach... wouldn't the same reasoning apply to RPGs or atomic weapons? Please explain.

Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.

I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.

 

[kaz]

An interesting legal approach... wouldn't the same reasoning apply to RPGs or atomic weapons? Please explain.

Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.

I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.

Any hammer is capable of harming bystanders too

 

[Fishlore]

An interesting legal approach... wouldn't the same reasoning apply to RPGs or atomic weapons? Please explain.

Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.

I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.

Any hammer is capable of harming bystanders too

Not unless the guy throwing the hammer is the Norse god, Thor. Suggesting that a hammer has the same potential for collateral damage as an assault-style rifle is pretty funny, even coming from a gun nut. Get serious

 

[kaz]

An interesting legal approach... wouldn't the same reasoning apply to RPGs or atomic weapons? Please explain.

Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.

I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.

Any hammer is capable of harming bystanders too

Not unless the guy throwing the hammer is the Norse god, Thor. Suggesting that a hammer has the same potential for collateral damage as an assault-style rifle is pretty funny, even coming from a gun nut. Get serious

So your standard changes, now it's not just what it's capable of, it's what's more capable of doing it. Never said it was the "same," you just pulled that out of the air.

The purpose of a gun and hammer are different. A gun can also (and is far more likely to) be carried for defense while a hammer is useless for that purpose against a gun

 

[Fishlore]

An interesting legal approach... wouldn't the same reasoning apply to RPGs or atomic weapons? Please explain.

Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.

I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.

Any hammer is capable of harming bystanders too

Not unless the guy throwing the hammer is the Norse god, Thor. Suggesting that a hammer has the same potential for collateral damage as an assault-style rifle is pretty funny, even coming from a gun nut. Get serious

So your standard changes, now it's not just what it's capable of, it's what's more capable of doing it. Never said it was the "same," you just pulled that out of the air.

The purpose of a gun and hammer are different. A gun can also (and is far more likely to) be carried for defense while a hammer is useless for that purpose against a gun

A hammer may just about as good as a gun, and in some cases, better . Most cops go many years without discharging their weapons, a good indication that all these concealed carry guys with their fantasies of stopping crime and bagging bad guys are just dreaming.

One of the reasons cops fire so rarely is that their in-service training places heavy emphasis on when NOT to shoot, a concept that doesn't figure in the Lone Ranger fantasies of your average gun nut. Gun nuts are all about shooting. From their posts on line they reveal how, if the ever got the chance, they would cheerfully return fire with some suspected bad guy (perhaps another gun nut?) in settings were cops are trained NOT to shoot. We would all be better off if the gun nuts carried a claw hammer in that holster instead of their beloved semi-autos.

 

[kaz]

Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.

I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.

Any hammer is capable of harming bystanders too

Not unless the guy throwing the hammer is the Norse god, Thor. Suggesting that a hammer has the same potential for collateral damage as an assault-style rifle is pretty funny, even coming from a gun nut. Get serious

So your standard changes, now it's not just what it's capable of, it's what's more capable of doing it. Never said it was the "same," you just pulled that out of the air.

The purpose of a gun and hammer are different. A gun can also (and is far more likely to) be carried for defense while a hammer is useless for that purpose against a gun

A hammer may just about as good as a gun, and in some cases, better . Most cops go many years without discharging their weapons, a good indication that all these concealed carry guys with their fantasies of stopping crime and bagging bad guys are just dreaming.

One of the reasons cops fire so rarely is that their in-service training places heavy emphasis on when NOT to shoot, a concept that doesn't figure in the Lone Ranger fantasies of your average gun nut. Gun nuts are all about shooting. From their posts on line they reveal how, if the ever got the chance, they would cheerfully return fire with some suspected bad guy (perhaps another gun nut?) in settings were cops are trained NOT to shoot. We would all be better off if the gun nuts carried a claw hammer in that holster instead of their beloved semi-autos.

OK, we can set up a face off, you can have the hammer and I'll take the gun

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Close all background check loopholes

2. Increase the penalties for providing a gun to someone not legall eligible to own a gun.

3. Increase the penalties for possessing a gun illegally.

4. Register the identity of all guns sold from this point. Require all owners to account for the dispositions of any registered gun they acquire.

 

[Ernie S.]

One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.

There is the usual Schadenfreude over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".

What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.

A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED

One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear. The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing. Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.

Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.

 

[Fishlore]

One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.

There is the usual Schadenfreude over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".

What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.

A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED

One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear. The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing. Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.

Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

 

[Ernie S.]

Connecticut State Legislature Passes Gun Control Bill Aimed at Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence

Victims of domestic violence in Connecticut will receive additional protections with the passing of a bill aimed at prohibiting those who are subject to a temporary restraining order from possessing firearms, thus eliminating a critical window of time during which a victim’s life could be at risk. The bill heads to the governor’s desk in the coming days for his signature before it becomes state law.

Bill Requires Those With a Temporary Restraining Order to Turn in Gun

Kiss that "gun culture" good bye in the Nutmeg State

THAT would be an interesting SCOTUS case. Someone not judged insane or convicted of a crime being denied a Constitutionally guaranteed right...
Well, THAT is another reason I left the state of my birth.

The state's interest in public safety is a factor in laws restricting gun possession, a factor explicity cited in SCOTUS ruling. A domestic TRO is not simply issued automatically. It is a warrant signed by a judge, a ruling based on evidence. The evidence may be sworn testimony of the spouse. It frequently includes one or more police reports of response to a domestic incident call. The object of the TRO has the right to appear before the judge and offer opposing testimony, although the TRO does not require the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of criminal conviction.

Down in the Yellowhammer State, beating up the old lady is a popular indoor sport. In 2015
336 domestic violence victims (149 children and 187 adults) found refuge in emergency shelters or transitional housing provided by local domestic violence programs. 284 adults and children received non-residential assistance and services, including counseling, legal advocacy, and children’s support groups. And BTW presence of a gun in the home increases the chance of a domestic violence homicide by 500%

No wondery you love it down there.

www.dccadv.org
Domestic Violence in the District of Columbia 2015
Statistical Snapshot

34,966 domestic violence related calls were made to the Metropolitan Police Department in 2015, approximately 1 call every 15 minutes, representing a 6% increase over 2014 and a
13% increase since 2012.

5,505 petitions for Civil Protection Orders were filed in court
in 2015, representing a 9% increase over 2014 and a 17% increase since 2012.

5,867 people sought help at the court’s Domestic Violence Intake Centers, which assist people in obtaining civil protection orders, safety planning and referrals for legal assistance, housing and social services.

27% of homeless families in DC reported a history of domestic violence in 2015 and 15.3% were currently homeless as a direct result of a violent incident.

On one day in 2015, 511 victims were served by local domestic violence service providers. 302 victims found refuge in emergency shelters or transitional housing, 209 victims received
support services such as counseling, legal advocacy and
children’s support groups.
Local domestic violence service providers received 43 requests by victims for services that they were unable to meet. 35% of these unmet requests were for housing.

336 in one year in Alabama vs 302 in ONE ******* DAY in the liberal Mecca of Washington DC, a city with the most restrictive gun laws in the country. 0.3% yes, zero point three percent as many Alabamians went to emergency shelters. Thank you for proving my point so eloquently.

 

[SmokeALib]

One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.

There is the usual Schadenfreude over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".

What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.

A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED

One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear. The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing. Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.

Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

 

[Ernie S.]

One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.

There is the usual Schadenfreude over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".

What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.

A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED

One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear. The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing. Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.

Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

A rather unsubstantial reply there, doofus. Narcissism noted; rebuttal, absent.
At least I live in the real world. That in itself makes me imminently more qualified to speak on American policy than someone who has obviously been sheltered from reality his whole life.

 

[Ernie S.]

Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.

I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.

Any hammer is capable of harming bystanders too

Not unless the guy throwing the hammer is the Norse god, Thor. Suggesting that a hammer has the same potential for collateral damage as an assault-style rifle is pretty funny, even coming from a gun nut. Get serious

So your standard changes, now it's not just what it's capable of, it's what's more capable of doing it. Never said it was the "same," you just pulled that out of the air.

The purpose of a gun and hammer are different. A gun can also (and is far more likely to) be carried for defense while a hammer is useless for that purpose against a gun

A hammer may just about as good as a gun, and in some cases, better . Most cops go many years without discharging their weapons, a good indication that all these concealed carry guys with their fantasies of stopping crime and bagging bad guys are just dreaming.

One of the reasons cops fire so rarely is that their in-service training places heavy emphasis on when NOT to shoot, a concept that doesn't figure in the Lone Ranger fantasies of your average gun nut. Gun nuts are all about shooting. From their posts on line they reveal how, if the ever got the chance, they would cheerfully return fire with some suspected bad guy (perhaps another gun nut?) in settings were cops are trained NOT to shoot. We would all be better off if the gun nuts carried a claw hammer in that holster instead of their beloved semi-autos.

I must be a gun nut. I'm all about shooting at targets and practicing drawing my weapon quickly.
If I was all about shooting people, I'd have at least 2 bodies I'd need to get rid of.
I have defended myself against 2 knife assaults over the years. The first time, all that was needed was to show the big assed revolver in my shoulder holster. The second required pressing the barrel of my .40 in a man's sternum.
I'm but one of 80 million gun owners. If I've successfully defended myself twice without firing a shot, how many others have done the same without becoming statistics?

 

[Fishlore]

One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.

There is the usual Schadenfreude over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".

What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.

A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED

One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear. The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing. Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.

Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

 

[Ernie S.]

What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.

A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED

One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear. The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing. Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.

Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Close all background check loopholes

2. Increase the penalties for providing a gun to someone not legall eligible to own a gun.

3. Increase the penalties for possessing a gun illegally.

4. Register the identity of all guns sold from this point. Require all owners to account for the dispositions of any registered gun they acquire.

And, without objection, the proposals pass.

See, that was easy...

 

[Fishlore]

A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED

One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear. The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing. Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.

Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless

1. Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).
2. Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008).
3. Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004).
4. David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
5. Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf

Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.

 

[SmokeALib]

Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless

1. Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).
2. Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008).
3. Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004).
4. David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
5. Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf

Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.

All leftist bullshit. As long as I have a gun, nobody will harm my family. Guaranteed. I know how to use it, I know when to use it. If anybody breaks into my home while I'm there, it will be the last thing they ever do.
In the meantime, you call 911. That will be the last thing YOU ever do.

 

[Ernie S.]

Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless

1. Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).
2. Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008).
3. Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004).
4. David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
5. Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf

Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.

Anyone who cites Kellerman goes on my ignore list. Kellerman's study was so flawed even he refuted it

 

[Ernie S.]

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless

1. Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).
2. Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008).
3. Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004).
4. David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
5. Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf

Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.

All leftist bullshit. As long as I have a gun, nobody will harm my family. Guaranteed. I know how to use it, I know when to use it. If anybody breaks into my home while I'm there, it will be the last thing they ever do.
In the meantime, you call 911. That will be the last thing YOU ever do.

He can call 911. I'LL call 1911, thank you.