The downside of carrying a firearm...

[bigrebnc1775]

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.1

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.2

Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.6

On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.7

Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.8

Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.9

Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10

Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.18

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age

You have a better chance of winning the lottery twice than getting shot once using your stats.

 

[Vox]

Falling is not murder

2/3 of all MURDERS are caused by guns

To claim we can't do anything about gun violence untill all other possible causes of death are eliminated is ridiculous

guns are used to prevent more crimes and murder than they are used to cause

Our murder rate does not support that

yes, they do.

and most murders are commited NOT by firearms.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi CCJones: My new year's resolution is to take a more inclusive approach in forming partnerships to resolve conflicts, in order to write out a resolution to both parties by participating members to encourage the same thing, to include and not bully or discriminate against people by conflicting religious or political views which should all be equally protected and represented in fulfilling Constitutional principles and ethics.

I hope you will join with me and other members who are already making those efforts to be more inclusive, especially where we disagree and strive to correct the conflicts and/or respect that we have differences that should both be accounted for and not suppressed.

A.

The 2nd amendment was about protecting Americans from redcoats and indians. Since neither is now a threat, the 2nd amendment is now obsolete.

Nope, the Bill of Rights is 9 limitations on what government can do, and one final option. Jefferson was very clear that he knew that ALL governments grow corrupt and he wanted to make sure that the citizens of this country had the means to remove an illegitimate government.

Jefferson was not the only Founding Father, and the Framers were never of one mind as to any aspect of the Constitution.

Which is why the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

A1. Before Jefferson was born or said anything about government, the natural laws of human nature already existed. Do you agree that humans have a nature to defend free will and the right to consent or dissent? So this is the basis of Constitutional law, to try to define and protect the consent of the governed, and due process/right to petition to redress grievances to avoid oppression (and violent conflict that tends to erupt from political oppression left unaddressed), and thus the free speech and freedom of the press necessary to communicate to facilitate the democratic process and to educate people to have equal access and knowledge in order to strive for equal justice and peace in society?

I agree that many different people and views went into the writing of the Constitution.

local points such as Natives or defense against British who sought to disarm the colonists are EXAMPLES of why right to defense is necessary; but the underlying issue that existed before and has always co-existed with human nature is the natural law that people will seek to defend their will, whether this means life liberty property or religious/political belief.

how you want to express that right of defense, can be in any number of ways. historically, yes I'm sure the people back then made the same myriad of different arguments and justifications that we do today, and probably didn't agree either which was more critical.

But they did agree on the second amendment as written, even though some states did have local militia and some did not, and people back then likely didn't agree what each other meant in how this law was to be applied. they were coming from different situations.

B.

And Second Amendment case law acknowledges a right to self-defense and the right to own a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense, unconnected with militia service. By codifying an individual right of self-defense, the Second Amendment in no way authorizes armed rebellion against a Federal government subjectively perceived by some to have become ‘tyrannical.’

Indeed, the Second Amendment doesn’t trump the First Amendment, citizens first and foremost have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, to seek relief from government excess through the ballot box or the Federal courts, where citizens are not authorized to take it upon themselves to ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government without the consent of a majority of all the people of the Nation; to do so without the consent of the majority of the American people would be an act of treason and rebellion, not an act of ‘restoration.’

I agree with what I think you are saying, that even the militia is supposed to be "well regulated" the point being to enforce the Constitution not mayhem. So if you are saying the govt is not following the Constitution and due process, then the enforcers taking up arms would have to be upholding that authority in order to correct the ones out of line. And to have the authority would mean to be enforcing the Constitution and protecting due process that the govt is failing to do. you cannot violate the laws you are trying to enforce.

it should be orderly as possible.

only if the govt attacks without due process and then you defend yourself using arms, then it becomes a self-defense argument as to why you didn't have time to apply due process.

but this does not justify a preemptive strike where you start making war and attacks against govt without first seeking diplomatic redress of grievances. when petitions and due process are pursued orderly in the spirit of natural laws and the Constitution, this carries the weight of the people or the consent of the governed from which govt derives its authority. so such processes tend to go through successfully.

if you approach the process with political division that does not represent the whole of the people or the public, that is why it fails. it is just more political bullying by one group against another. unfortunately that is what we have going on now, even in Congress and through the President's office pushing onesided agenda that doesn't respresent the public.

to be fair, to be inclusive, I will also say that as many people felt that Bush was abusing his office to push policies that didn't represent a large number of taxpaying dissenters either.

in order to correct this, to DEFEND the Constitution, the authority of the public must be invoked and not partisan forces on one side vs another.

I think it would be easier to see the proper enforcement and application of the Second Amendment when you remove the partisan agenda.

You are both right that people defend and interpret the Second Amendment for different reasons and contexts that matter to them.

the true meaning is the right of defense, and for me believing in conflict resolution FIRST to avoid the need for armed threats of force as a security measure, I even interpret part of the Second Amendment as the right to legal defense as well for other people who do not use arms but use other means of "enforcing the Constitution" we shouldn't have to resort to arms to defend our rights, or resort to lawsuits, but should be able to enforce the laws without competing with bigger guns or meaner lawyers which is no guarantee.

so I take the right of defense much further than just the arms specifically stated

I believe the well regulated militia refers to enforcement of Constitutional laws and principles in general, and anyone has the right to defend these with or without force.

in the case of arms, I believe it is the duty and responsibility to enforce the Constitution as a condition of bearing those arms. so if everyone agreed to those terms, that would cover all the other cases of defending one's will, consent and right of defense in any conflict.

there would be no need to argue over each and every application this law applies to.

 

[emilynghiem]

guns are used to prevent more crimes and murder than they are used to cause

Our murder rate does not support that

yes, they do.

and most murders are commited NOT by firearms.

and murders are not CAUSED by the firearms but by the people

most murders can be prevented by managing personal issues directly

by addressing the anger, abuse, conflict or other issues that precipitated the murder

much of this requires personal counseling that is OUTSIDE govt jurisidiction

if this is not done, then you can argue in circles about guns "after the fact"
and never solve the real problems behind crimes, abuse, violence and murder.

if you want to address the causes of murder (and drug addiction, criminal illness, and relationship abuse that most often lead up to acts of violence or murder)

why not focus on the level of "health and safety codes" BEFORE these issues become matters of civil or criminal violations forced into government hands?

better screening and earlier intervention on the level of "health and safety" would localize the decision and process to the people or the states, and keep these issues out of the federal level that is supposed to handle national security military and defense for the whole nation

these issues of local safety and public health are better addressed per person and per community to catch and resolve the issues internally which govt is not designed for.

since all states are facing political issues of health care reform, it makes sense to reform the criminal justice system that overlaps with public health. we should re-examine what we are spending on health care that isn't diagnosing or curing addiction or criminal illness, and invest in programs and methods that do work. by reducing crime and the costs related, especially early diagnosis of criminal illness and addiction to reduce murder and the exorbitant costs of capital crime and punishment, we could pay for health care instead.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Falling is not murder

2/3 of all MURDERS are caused by guns

To claim we can't do anything about gun violence untill all other possible causes of death are eliminated is ridiculous

How many of those are from legally owned registered firearms?

I'm all for getting rid of illegal guns as long as you leave law abiding people alone.

All guns in the US start out by being purchased legally, so in fact, it's the legal gun owners who are not responsible to take care of their shit, as well as too lax gun laws that don't punish the legal owners of the gun when it gets used in a crime.

Google "straw purchases" dumbass.

 

[Slacker]

Right, a culture of "gun fetishism" doesn't cause violence. Given that society's fascination with violence, it causes gun violence specifically.

Yes, our culture of violence, in movies, TV, video games, and how we raise our kids (boys specifically), does desensitize us to violence but there is debate on whether it causes people to be violent. A "gun fetish" does not lead to violence though. The best estimates for gun ownership are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns. If that's what you consider a fetish and that the "gun fetish" causes the violence, then we'd be seeing a hell of a lot more "gun violence" than we do now. I don't consider gang (gun) violence, suicide, accidental shootings, etc. to fall into the category that concerns people the most which is the senseless killings. Like the topic of this thread.The factors that determine our behavior and whether a person is at risk for developing violent tendencies include biological traits, family bonding, individual characteristics, intelligence and education, child development, peer relationships, cultural shaping and resiliency.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Without the intent to murder, the firearm is nothing more than a paper weight. If we were to address the criminal, the tool would be irrelevant. 100% of the firearms I own have never murdered another person.

And Countries with more guns per capita have murder rates that are lower than ours. Switzerland and Sweden come to mind immediately as proof of that. So, it's not the firearms, its the people.

Both Switzerland and Sweden have gun ownership of about one quarter of ours

The problem with gun violence goes beyond intent. The jerk in the movie theater did not intend to bring his gun to shoot someone....but when he lost his temper, the gun was there

Why do you live in fear?

I find that people on the left tend to have an unreasonable fear of being in the proximity of guns.

 

[DoItMyself]

We are just lucky to have guns keeping us safe

yes, we are. Safe from the government. And thats the exact reason for the 2nd amendment.

If we are safe from govt, then why are so many people in a rage the last few years about all the harm the government could do to us?

 

[Bumberclyde]

How many of those are from legally owned registered firearms?

I'm all for getting rid of illegal guns as long as you leave law abiding people alone.

All guns in the US start out by being purchased legally, so in fact, it's the legal gun owners who are not responsible to take care of their shit, as well as too lax gun laws that don't punish the legal owners of the gun when it gets used in a crime.

Google "straw purchases" dumbass.

Which shows that the gun laws are way too lax. From wiki: "Straw purchases made outside of federally regulated dealerships are not illegal unless the gun is used in a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser. "
Too many loopholes and lousy laws to start with.

 

[PredFan]

The downside of carrying a firearm:

You have to clean the gun more often.
The pretty copper jacket gets tarnished.
My keys scratch the finish.
Whenever I have to loosen my belt, I also have to loosen my holster.

Yeah that's all the downside I can think of.

 

[Bumberclyde]

The downside of carrying a firearm:

You have to clean the gun more often.
The pretty copper jacket gets tarnished.
My keys scratch the finish.
Whenever I have to loosen my belt, I also have to loosen my holster.

Yeah that's all the downside I can think of.

The upside is that you will always have a chance to eat your gun every year the Preds don't come close to winning the Cup. Which is well... Every year.

 

[Pogo]

Wrong. 100% of all MURDERS are caused by people. The tools they use are not the issue. The violence they do IS the issue.

Tools are absolutely the issue. having the tool of a gun at your disposal makes murder much easier

Countries with fewer guns have murder rates one third to one fifth of ours

Without the intent to murder, the firearm is nothing more than a paper weight. If we were to address the criminal, the tool would be irrelevant. 100% of the firearms I own have never murdered another person.

And Countries with more guns per capita have murder rates that are lower than ours. Switzerland and Sweden come to mind immediately as proof of that. So, it's not the firearms, its the people.

Finally -- we agree. It is the people, our culture and our history. That's why I keep saying focusing on gun restriction laws is trying to treat the symptom while ignoring the disease.

 

[Pogo]

2/3 of all MURDERS are caused by guns

Wrong. 100% of all MURDERS are caused by people. The tools they use are not the issue. The violence they do IS the issue.

The tool is an issue when you have one tool that makes it infinitely easier than all the other tools. Again, try to pick somebody off from a tower using a baseball bat.

 

[Pogo]

Your argument is invalid.

Your cartoon is a strawman.

 

[rightwinger]

guns are used to prevent more crimes and murder than they are used to cause

Our murder rate does not support that

yes, they do.

and most murders are commited NOT by firearms.

Bull shit

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wasn't it a .30-06?

I think that was the main weapon.

Remington model 700 6mm

he also had a 35 caliber and an assortment of others

Like I said, I think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Adding a firearm to the equation turned what would have been a shoving and shouting match into a fatality

You support disarming police? If not, I suggest you think about how you want to rephrase your stupidity.

By the way, did anyone check to see if the theater has a no guns allowed sign? A cop, being above the law, would just flash a badge and get a pass, but most civilians would prefer to see the movie rather than argue the law.

I am for disarming whacko police who think harsh words, angry eye contact and flying popcorn are lethal weapons. That is the real issue here, Not guns.

You want to disarm cops, because, as far as I know, the only person who ever got shot over his kids throwing popcorn was shot by a cop.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your argument is invalid.

"Guns don't kill people.....People with guns kill people"

People without guns never kill anyone, right?

 

[rightwinger]

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.1

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.2

Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.6

On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.7

Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.8

Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.9

Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10

Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.18

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age

You have a better chance of winning the lottery twice than getting shot once using your stats.

31,076 Americans won the lottery twice last year?

 

[Pogo]

It seems only fair to tell you that I do not have a clue as to what you are talking about in Los Angeles.

But I can tell you this. I lived in New Orleans for 10 years, and there are nieghborhoods where even the cops don't enter at night unless they are in teams of four. So, unless you are Sylvester Stallone, I feel secure in telling you that, even with my firearms training through the Pima County Sheriff's department, I would not enter certain nieghborhoods in New Orleans without a bazookaza, but I bow down to you, the ultimate terminator, who is prepared to take on an entire group of gangsters who are armed to the teeth, have nothing to lose, and hate your guts, just for being in their neighborhood.

Of course, if you have George Zimmerman with you, that would be a different story altogether.....

Like I said ... You don't know who or what you are talking about.
I don't have any business to do in the neighborhoods you are a talking about ... I don't need any drugs, and the places I frequent are little easier to get to and more enjoyable.
I don't need to be Sylvester Stallone to get from the JW Marriot to Mike Anderson's.

I carry a firearm for the chances the criminals don't stay in their neighborhood.
It is hilarious ... Gun grabbing freaks call us nuts ... And then think we are going to try an armed assault on the 9th Ward.

Frankly, having lived in New Orleans, I don't find either one of these POVs rational at all. It isn't a war zone and there's no need to walk around packing.

And by the way folks it's "As I said" -- not "like I said".