***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[Cookiemonster]

I appreciate your view but disagree. Homeowners can reload as easily as a Perp. Saying the effect is negligible doesn't mean it's unimportant. I think saving a negligible amount of lives is worth it. I understand why you disagree.

I argue that it will save as many lives as it costs both ways. If spree killers can kill an extra 3 people, twice a year, costing 6 lives... I argue that home owners would be able to stop an extra perp 3 times a year, saving (assuming most homes have more than one occupant) 6 lives. It is assumed, by me, that the lives saved by a ban would be sacrificed on the other side, and that the lives saved by allowing high-caps would be sacrificed on the other side as well. 1:1 (approximately) doing nobody any good. It would be doing bad (from my viewpoint) by allowing Feds more control over our lives and basic rights as human beings.

That's a reasonable view point. I suppose I'm not (so far) willing to acknowledge that a person defending their home is any more likely to be successful if they have a large magazine. What kind of home invasions continue after the perp realizes the victim is armed at all? How many continue after the victim has fired 10 rounds? I realize these numbers are hard to quantify but my guess (yes, a guess) is that if 10 bullets don't defend you than 500 bullets wasn't likely to help much either.

OK. So we're in the same ballpark anyways. Consider what was said a few pages back about the preparedness of somebody sleeping in their underwear. Do they have the facilities to carry multiple low-cap mags or just grab the nearest weapon and go for it. If there are multiple armed assailants (you don't know when wakened from a dead sleep, or they coax you to open the door to a cute, young female "selling magazine subscriptions"), could they adequately defend their home / family if hit % is 40% for stress trained cops, and it takes an average of 4 hits to incapacitate a man. Yes, many assailants will run at the first sign of equally armed resistance. SOME WILL FIGHT. Would 10 rounds be enough if you are going to average 4 hits per 10 round mag when each assailant could absorb 4 hits? If there are three? Four? Very slim percentages would fit this scenario, but in this scenario would 30 rounds vs 10 make a difference?

Yay? Nay? Bueller... Bueller? Test me, mother ####ers. I'm drinking tonight. I should be an easy fight now.

Fry... Fry...

 

[timschochet]

#1 The second amendment was intended to empower the people against their government if need be.. You disagree?#2 If you agree that the second amendment was intended to empower the people, if need be, against the government, then would we need to increase the availability to weapons, rather than limit them? We're already out gun-ed, this idea is pushing us future in the wrong direction (as according to the second amendment) right?

OK, you asked serious questions, so I will try to give you a serious answer:1. There is apparently a lot of debate about what exactly the 2nd Amendment is for. You may be at least partly right, but I don't care about the motivation, and I don't want to get bogged down in arguing over it. Here's what's important: I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I want everyone who enjoys owning firearms to be able to do so, so long as they follow the law. I believe in certain moderate restrictions that should be in place because I think they will make us all safer. 3. There is no "right direction" or "wrong direction" to me as regards the 2nd Amendment. If you're going to discuss the 2nd Amendment within the context of a larger discussion about limiting high capacity magazines and universal background checks, there is only ONE pertinent question: do either of these proposals violate the 2nd Amendment? Yes or no? And if your answer is yes, then make the argument. If you can't do it, then let's stop talking about the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Well I give up trying to educate Timmy, I am going to go spoon with my wife on one side and my 20ga on the other.Just kidding Tim one of the two will be on the dresser.

 

[Cookiemonster]

#1 The second amendment was intended to empower the people against their government if need be.. You disagree?

#2 If you agree that the second amendment was intended to empower the people, if need be, against the government, then would we need to increase the availability to weapons, rather than limit them? We're already out gun-ed, this idea is pushing us future in the wrong direction (as according to the second amendment) right?

OK, you asked serious questions, so I will try to give you a serious answer:1. There is apparently a lot of debate about what exactly the 2nd Amendment is for. You may be at least partly right, but I don't care about the motivation, and I don't want to get bogged down in arguing over it. Here's what's important: I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I want everyone who enjoys owning firearms to be able to do so, so long as they follow the law. I believe in certain moderate restrictions that should be in place because I think they will make us all safer.

3. There is no "right direction" or "wrong direction" to me as regards the 2nd Amendment. If you're going to discuss the 2nd Amendment within the context of a larger discussion about limiting high capacity magazines and universal background checks, there is only ONE pertinent question: do either of these proposals violate the 2nd Amendment? Yes or no? And if your answer is yes, then make the argument. If you can't do it, then let's stop talking about the 2nd Amendment.

The universal background checks can not be accomplished without a registry and database. There is no way to enforce it without being able to back trace the guns found illegally. The national registry database is a serious privacy violation against possibly the 4th Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure), the 5th Amendment (self-incrimination & eminent domain), possibly the 9th Amendment, the 10th Amendment (powers of states and people), not to say that those have not already been trampled on, repeatedly by much more than gun rights.High cap mags are still up for debate, and I'm waiting for a witty response from you regarding my echoing post on the subject.

 

[timschochet]

I appreciate your view but disagree. Homeowners can reload as easily as a Perp. Saying the effect is negligible doesn't mean it's unimportant. I think saving a negligible amount of lives is worth it. I understand why you disagree.

I argue that it will save as many lives as it costs both ways. If spree killers can kill an extra 3 people, twice a year, costing 6 lives... I argue that home owners would be able to stop an extra perp 3 times a year, saving (assuming most homes have more than one occupant) 6 lives. It is assumed, by me, that the lives saved by a ban would be sacrificed on the other side, and that the lives saved by allowing high-caps would be sacrificed on the other side as well. 1:1 (approximately) doing nobody any good. It would be doing bad (from my viewpoint) by allowing Feds more control over our lives and basic rights as human beings.

That's a reasonable view point. I suppose I'm not (so far) willing to acknowledge that a person defending their home is any more likely to be successful if they have a large magazine. What kind of home invasions continue after the perp realizes the victim is armed at all? How many continue after the victim has fired 10 rounds? I realize these numbers are hard to quantify but my guess (yes, a guess) is that if 10 bullets don't defend you than 500 bullets wasn't likely to help much either.

OK. So we're in the same ballpark anyways. Consider what was said a few pages back about the preparedness of somebody sleeping in their underwear. Do they have the facilities to carry multiple low-cap mags or just grab the nearest weapon and go for it. If there are multiple armed assailants (you don't know when wakened from a dead sleep, or they coax you to open the door to a cute, young female "selling magazine subscriptions"), could they adequately defend their home / family if hit % is 40% for stress trained cops, and it takes an average of 4 hits to incapacitate a man. Yes, many assailants will run at the first sign of equally armed resistance. SOME WILL FIGHT. Would 10 rounds be enough if you are going to average 4 hits per 10 round mag when each assailant could absorb 4 hits? If there are three? Four? Very slim percentages would fit this scenario, but in this scenario would 30 rounds vs 10 make a difference?

Yay? Nay? Bueller... Bueller? Test me, mother ####ers. I'm drinking tonight. I should be an easy fight now.

Fry... Fry...

The problem with this argument is that, for many days now, you and others have been arguing that mass shooters do not need high capacity magazines to do their maximum damage. The story of the grandmother who could reload in less of a second was trotted out, along with the examples of Columbine and Virginia Tech, etc. Now suddenly you're arguing that while mass shooters don't need them, private citizens DO need them to prevent home invasions. That's a complete contradiction.Furthermore, I'm calling BS on this whole argument. I believe that the gun owners who use high capacity magazines do so because it's fun to fire them off at shooting ranges. It's for pleasure, not personal protection. Someone offered the compromise that perhaps these mags could be available at shooting ranges; you could rent them and still enjoy the use of them. I would have no problem with that.

 

[timschochet]

#1 The second amendment was intended to empower the people against their government if need be.. You disagree?

#2 If you agree that the second amendment was intended to empower the people, if need be, against the government, then would we need to increase the availability to weapons, rather than limit them? We're already out gun-ed, this idea is pushing us future in the wrong direction (as according to the second amendment) right?

OK, you asked serious questions, so I will try to give you a serious answer:1. There is apparently a lot of debate about what exactly the 2nd Amendment is for. You may be at least partly right, but I don't care about the motivation, and I don't want to get bogged down in arguing over it. Here's what's important: I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I want everyone who enjoys owning firearms to be able to do so, so long as they follow the law. I believe in certain moderate restrictions that should be in place because I think they will make us all safer.

3. There is no "right direction" or "wrong direction" to me as regards the 2nd Amendment. If you're going to discuss the 2nd Amendment within the context of a larger discussion about limiting high capacity magazines and universal background checks, there is only ONE pertinent question: do either of these proposals violate the 2nd Amendment? Yes or no? And if your answer is yes, then make the argument. If you can't do it, then let's stop talking about the 2nd Amendment.

The universal background checks can not be accomplished without a registry and database. There is no way to enforce it without being able to back trace the guns found illegally. The national registry database is a serious privacy violation against possibly the 4th Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure), the 5th Amendment (self-incrimination & eminent domain), possibly the 9th Amendment, the 10th Amendment (powers of states and people), not to say that those have not already been trampled on, repeatedly by much more than gun rights.High cap mags are still up for debate, and I'm waiting for a witty response from you regarding my echoing post on the subject.

Actually I just gave you a fairly serious response. I've used up my wit here. Regarding your point- I'm not sure a national database of who owned what guns would violate the amendments you think they might- that seems a little far-fetched to me, but I am not a lawyer. In any event, it would certainly not violate the 2nd Amendment, and that was Hustler's claim (and Mr. Two Cents.)

As far high cap mags being up for debate- I doubt it. The AWB included the high cap bans, and it lasted for 10 years, and the SC did not overturn it. That tells me that there is no Constitutional question here.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I appreciate your view but disagree. Homeowners can reload as easily as a Perp. Saying the effect is negligible doesn't mean it's unimportant. I think saving a negligible amount of lives is worth it. I understand why you disagree.

I argue that it will save as many lives as it costs both ways. If spree killers can kill an extra 3 people, twice a year, costing 6 lives... I argue that home owners would be able to stop an extra perp 3 times a year, saving (assuming most homes have more than one occupant) 6 lives. It is assumed, by me, that the lives saved by a ban would be sacrificed on the other side, and that the lives saved by allowing high-caps would be sacrificed on the other side as well. 1:1 (approximately) doing nobody any good. It would be doing bad (from my viewpoint) by allowing Feds more control over our lives and basic rights as human beings.

That's a reasonable view point. I suppose I'm not (so far) willing to acknowledge that a person defending their home is any more likely to be successful if they have a large magazine. What kind of home invasions continue after the perp realizes the victim is armed at all? How many continue after the victim has fired 10 rounds? I realize these numbers are hard to quantify but my guess (yes, a guess) is that if 10 bullets don't defend you than 500 bullets wasn't likely to help much either.

OK. So we're in the same ballpark anyways. Consider what was said a few pages back about the preparedness of somebody sleeping in their underwear. Do they have the facilities to carry multiple low-cap mags or just grab the nearest weapon and go for it. If there are multiple armed assailants (you don't know when wakened from a dead sleep, or they coax you to open the door to a cute, young female "selling magazine subscriptions"), could they adequately defend their home / family if hit % is 40% for stress trained cops, and it takes an average of 4 hits to incapacitate a man. Yes, many assailants will run at the first sign of equally armed resistance. SOME WILL FIGHT. Would 10 rounds be enough if you are going to average 4 hits per 10 round mag when each assailant could absorb 4 hits? If there are three? Four? Very slim percentages would fit this scenario, but in this scenario would 30 rounds vs 10 make a difference?

Yay? Nay? Bueller... Bueller? Test me, mother ####ers. I'm drinking tonight. I should be an easy fight now.

Fry... Fry...

The problem with this argument is that, for many days now, you and others have been arguing that mass shooters do not need high capacity magazines to do their maximum damage. The story of the grandmother who could reload in less of a second was trotted out, along with the examples of Columbine and Virginia Tech, etc. Now suddenly you're arguing that while mass shooters don't need them, private citizens DO need them to prevent home invasions. That's a complete contradiction.Furthermore, I'm calling BS on this whole argument. I believe that the gun owners who use high capacity magazines do so because it's fun to fire them off at shooting ranges. It's for pleasure, not personal protection. Someone offered the compromise that perhaps these mags could be available at shooting ranges; you could rent them and still enjoy the use of them. I would have no problem with that.

My argument for home defense vs shooting spree was in preparedness. The mass shooter can pack as many low cap mags and situate them as available as he wants because he dictates when the action happens. The home defender is most often caught off guard.ETA - Yes. The most common need / want for high cap mags is for fun. The most practical is for defense.

Do you discount my (estimated) probability for a difference made in the above scenario? Equal harm to equal good either way it goes. Lives saved vs lives lost? Is my argument for the numbers of a multiple invader scenario valid, or at least close enough to call it valid?

 

[tommyboy]

in this thread we have leftist ire at the constitution, mockery as well

we have leftist insistence that we "do something" when in fact the "something" they propose would make all of us less safe.

and we have the usual leftist assumption that they are smarter than everyone else, and/or mockery of people they disagree with as "stupid" when a quick perusal of the many leftist posts in this thread provides ample evidence of their ignorance.

this hasn't been your finest hour, leftist gun hater guys.

but since you're all convinced that guns are dangerous you should sign the petition

You've made this claim several times, and I'm ####### sick of it. Back it up by explaining exactly how limiting high capacity magazines and demanding universal background checks violate the Constitution. If you can't do it, then you need to shut the hell up. I am sick to death of this paranoid claim. If you guys want to argue against the merits of the proposals, then do so. But stop arguing that they violate the 2nd Amendment. They don't even touch it.

nice strawman, i didn't claim limiting high cap magazines (hey, you've come a long way since a few weeks back when you didn't even know the name of those bullet holding thingys) or demanding universal background checks violate the constitution. I claimed (directly above your response) quote : "we have leftist ire at the constitution, mockery as well"for a quick example of that, read post 6179

http://forums.footba...post&p=15222223

Every time you make a post, you mention the 2nd Amendment. I'm glad you finally admit that it has nothing to do with subject matter. Hopefully now that you have made this admission, you'll stop mentioning it. (And that goes for the rest of you guys as well.)

So you've pivoted from a strawman to a false claim that i admitted something. In your desperation to seem clever, you actually doubled down on stupid.

 

[Henry Ford]

2nd amendment.Shall not be infringedKind of hard to misinterpret that phrase.All thats left is petty arguments about degrees of scariness

"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a little less straightforward.

[QUOTE='gunfacts.info]THE SECOND AMENDMENTJustification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause.506For a full discussion of how the 2nd Amendment was created and revised, see “Origin of the 2nd Amendment” in the “Miscellaneous information” section of this book.Myth: The Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment is not an individual rightFact: In D.C. v Heller the Supreme Court (2008) firmly established the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, as they had in Cruikshank and Dred Scott.Fact: In McDonald v Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court concluded the right is incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment.Fact: Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment or the state analogs to it, only 10 have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846).507Fact: In the Dred Scott case of 1856, the Supreme Court listed the protected rights of citizens and explicitly listed the right to keep and bear arms, and gave this right equal weight to the other freedoms enumerated in the constitution.Myth: The Second Amendment is a collective right, not an individual rightFact: St. George Tucker, any early legal commentator and authority of the original meaning of the constitution wrote in Blackstone’s Commentaries "Nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people”.508Fact: The Second Amendment was listed in a Supreme Court ruling as an individual right.509 Fact: The Supreme Court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did notbelong to the government.510Fact: In 22 of the 27 instances where the Supreme Court mentions the Second Amendment, they quote the rights clause and not the justification clause.506 Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA 507 For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keepand Bear Arms, Clayton Cramer, Praeger Press, 1994 508 Blackstone’s Commentaries, St. GeorgeTucker, Vol 1. Note D. Part 6. Restraints on Powers of Congress (1803). 509 Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, U.S. v. Cruikshank and others 510 United States v. MillerFact: Courts disagree. “We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training” and “We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment.”511Fact: Citizens disagree. 62% believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while a mere 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias.512Fact: There are 23 state constitutions with RKBA clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only three have "for the common defense" or other “collective rights” clauses.513Fact: James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". He never excluded the Second Amendment from this statement.Fact: Patrick Henry commented on the Swiss militia model (still in use today) noting that they maintain their independence without "a mighty and splendid President" or a standing army.514Fact: "The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion."515Fact: Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution said: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”511 U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331 512 Associated Television News Survey, August 1999, 1,007 likely voters513 For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Clayton Cramer, , Praeger Press, 1994, cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)514 Where Kids and Guns Do Mix, Stephen P. Halbrook, Wall Street Journal, June 2000515 Blackstone’s Commentaries, St. George Tucker, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 – Tucker's comments provide a number of insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice.Myth: The "militia" clause is to arm the National GuardFact: “Militia” is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group", and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. To the Romans, "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response. Today “militia” might be more meaningfully translated as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much asto groups of them, organized or otherwise. When we are alone, we are all militias of one. In the broadest sense, militia is the exercise of civic virtue. 516Fact: the #### Act of 1903 designated the National Guard as the "organized militia" and that all other citizens were the "unorganized militia" – thus the National Guard is only part of the militia, and the whole militia is composed of the population at large. Before 1903, the National Guard had no federal definition as part of the militia at all.Fact: The first half of the Second Amendment is called the "justification clause". Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis.517Fact: The origin of the phrase "a well regulated militia" comes from a 1698 treatise "A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias" by Andrew Fletcher, in which the term "well regulated" was equated with "well-behaved" or "disciplined".518Fact: “We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.”519Fact: “The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard ...”520Fact: Most of the 13 original states (and many colonies/territories that became states after ratification of the Constitution and before or shortly after ratification of the Bill of Rights) had their own constitutions, and it is from these that the original Bill of Rights was distilled. The state constitutions of that time had many “right to keep and bear arms” clauses that clearly guaranteed an individual right. Some examples include:Connecticut: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” Kentucky: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”Pennsylvania: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state ... The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”Rhode Island: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”Vermont: “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.”516 Militia, The Constitution Society, www.constiution.org 517 Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA, http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm518 This document was widely published during the colonial and revolutionary periods, and was the basis for state and federal 'bills of rights'.519 U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331 520 Ibid

[/QUOTE]Right. And that responds to what I said in what way? Edit: Oh, I see. You think I'm saying that the right of the people refers to something that's a derivative from the government's right to have the people form a militia or something. No. I'm saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't create a right for people, it merely expresses that right. "The right" doesn't exist within the four corners of the document. It's a right with limitations, too, and those limitations are discussed heavily in a number of Supreme Court cases.Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Find that in the First. Same concept.

 

[Cookiemonster]

2nd amendment.

Shall not be infringed

Kind of hard to misinterpret that phrase.

All thats left is petty arguments about degrees of scariness

"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a little less straightforward.

[QUOTE='gunfacts.info]THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause.506

For a full discussion of how the 2nd Amendment was created and revised, see “Origin of the 2nd Amendment” in the “Miscellaneous information” section of this book.

Myth: The Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment is not an individual right

Fact: In D.C. v Heller the Supreme Court (2008) firmly established the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, as they had in Cruikshank and Dred Scott.

Fact: In McDonald v Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court concluded the right is incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment.

Fact: Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment or the state analogs to it, only 10 have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846).507

Fact: In the Dred Scott case of 1856, the Supreme Court listed the protected rights of citizens and explicitly listed the right to keep and bear arms, and gave this right equal weight to the other freedoms enumerated in the constitution.

Myth: The Second Amendment is a collective right, not an individual right

Fact: St. George Tucker, any early legal commentator and authority of the original meaning of the constitution wrote in Blackstone’s Commentaries "Nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people”.508

Fact: The Second Amendment was listed in a Supreme Court ruling as an individual right.509

Fact: The Supreme Court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not

belong to the government.510

Fact: In 22 of the 27 instances where the Supreme Court mentions the Second Amendment, they quote the rights clause and not the justification clause.

506 Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA

507 For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep

and Bear Arms, Clayton Cramer, Praeger Press, 1994

508 Blackstone’s Commentaries, St. GeorgeTucker, Vol 1. Note D. Part 6. Restraints on Powers of Congress (1803).

509 Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, U.S. v. Cruikshank and others 510 United States v. Miller

Fact: Courts disagree. “We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training” and “We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment.”511

Fact: Citizens disagree. 62% believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while a mere 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias.512

Fact: There are 23 state constitutions with RKBA clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only three have "for the common defense" or other “collective rights” clauses.513

Fact: James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". He never excluded the Second Amendment from this statement.

Fact: Patrick Henry commented on the Swiss militia model (still in use today) noting that they maintain their independence without "a mighty and splendid President" or a standing army.514

Fact: "The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion."515

Fact: Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution said: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

511 U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

512 Associated Television News Survey, August 1999, 1,007 likely voters

513 For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Clayton Cramer, , Praeger Press, 1994, cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

514 Where Kids and Guns Do Mix, Stephen P. Halbrook, Wall Street Journal, June 2000

515 Blackstone’s Commentaries, St. George Tucker, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 – Tucker's comments provide a number of insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice.

Myth: The "militia" clause is to arm the National Guard

Fact: “Militia” is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group", and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. To the Romans, "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response. Today “militia” might be more meaningfully translated as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much asto groups of them, organized or otherwise. When we are alone, we are all militias of one. In the broadest sense, militia is the exercise of civic virtue. 516

Fact: the #### Act of 1903 designated the National Guard as the "organized militia" and that all other citizens were the "unorganized militia" – thus the National Guard is only part of the militia, and the whole militia is composed of the population at large. Before 1903, the National Guard had no federal definition as part of the militia at all.

Fact: The first half of the Second Amendment is called the "justification clause". Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis.517

Fact: The origin of the phrase "a well regulated militia" comes from a 1698 treatise "A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias" by Andrew Fletcher, in which the term "well regulated" was equated with "well-behaved" or "disciplined".518

Fact: “We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.”519

Fact: “The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard ...”520

Fact: Most of the 13 original states (and many colonies/territories that became states after ratification of the Constitution and before or shortly after ratification of the Bill of Rights) had their own constitutions, and it is from these that the original Bill of Rights was distilled. The state constitutions of that time had many “right to keep and bear arms” clauses that clearly guaranteed an individual right. Some examples include:

Connecticut: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” Kentucky: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

Pennsylvania: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state ... The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

Rhode Island: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Vermont: “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.”

516 Militia, The Constitution Society, www.constiution.org 517 Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA, http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

518 This document was widely published during the colonial and revolutionary periods, and was the basis for state and federal 'bills of rights'.

519 U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

520 Ibid

Right. And that responds to what I said in what way?Edit: Oh, I see. You think I'm saying that the right of the people refers to something that's a derivative from the government's right to have the people form a militia or something. No. I'm saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't create a right for people, it merely expresses that right. "The right" doesn't exist within the four corners of the document. It's a right with limitations, too, and those limitations are discussed heavily in a number of Supreme Court cases.

Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Find that in the First. Same concept.

[/QUOTE]"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a little less straightforward.Trying to illustrate the intent of the line you posted. To "straighten" it out. Not sure which side of the fence you intended your statement to fall on, but to clarify why it was written.

I concur that it is not all-inclusive. The restrictions I will concede to are convicted criminals. They may be subject to the forfeiture of some rights upon conviction.

And I've said before. The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant us the right to keep and bear arms. It preserves it. Self defense, from whatever entity against danger or liberty.

 

[Henry Ford]

"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a little less straightforward.

Trying to illustrate the intent of the line you posted. To "straighten" it out. Not sure which side of the fence you intended your statement to fall on, but to clarify why it was written.

I concur that it is not all-inclusive. The restrictions I will concede to are convicted criminals. They may be subject to the forfeiture of some rights upon conviction.

From Heller, which the anti-regulation crowd likes to quote and bastardize:

Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

 

[Cookiemonster]

"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a little less straightforward.

Trying to illustrate the intent of the line you posted. To "straighten" it out. Not sure which side of the fence you intended your statement to fall on, but to clarify why it was written.

I concur that it is not all-inclusive. The restrictions I will concede to are convicted criminals. They may be subject to the forfeiture of some rights upon conviction.

From Heller, which the anti-regulation crowd likes to quote and bastardize:

Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Debating what was said in that quote could take us another several pages in itself. Sadly, I am signing off for the night, and won't be on much at all 'till Thursday. Good points made tonight on both sides. G'night all.

 

[timschochet]

I appreciate your view but disagree. Homeowners can reload as easily as a Perp. Saying the effect is negligible doesn't mean it's unimportant. I think saving a negligible amount of lives is worth it. I understand why you disagree.

I argue that it will save as many lives as it costs both ways. If spree killers can kill an extra 3 people, twice a year, costing 6 lives... I argue that home owners would be able to stop an extra perp 3 times a year, saving (assuming most homes have more than one occupant) 6 lives. It is assumed, by me, that the lives saved by a ban would be sacrificed on the other side, and that the lives saved by allowing high-caps would be sacrificed on the other side as well. 1:1 (approximately) doing nobody any good. It would be doing bad (from my viewpoint) by allowing Feds more control over our lives and basic rights as human beings.

That's a reasonable view point. I suppose I'm not (so far) willing to acknowledge that a person defending their home is any more likely to be successful if they have a large magazine. What kind of home invasions continue after the perp realizes the victim is armed at all? How many continue after the victim has fired 10 rounds? I realize these numbers are hard to quantify but my guess (yes, a guess) is that if 10 bullets don't defend you than 500 bullets wasn't likely to help much either.

OK. So we're in the same ballpark anyways. Consider what was said a few pages back about the preparedness of somebody sleeping in their underwear. Do they have the facilities to carry multiple low-cap mags or just grab the nearest weapon and go for it. If there are multiple armed assailants (you don't know when wakened from a dead sleep, or they coax you to open the door to a cute, young female "selling magazine subscriptions"), could they adequately defend their home / family if hit % is 40% for stress trained cops, and it takes an average of 4 hits to incapacitate a man. Yes, many assailants will run at the first sign of equally armed resistance. SOME WILL FIGHT. Would 10 rounds be enough if you are going to average 4 hits per 10 round mag when each assailant could absorb 4 hits? If there are three? Four? Very slim percentages would fit this scenario, but in this scenario would 30 rounds vs 10 make a difference?

Yay? Nay? Bueller... Bueller? Test me, mother ####ers. I'm drinking tonight. I should be an easy fight now.

Fry... Fry...

The problem with this argument is that, for many days now, you and others have been arguing that mass shooters do not need high capacity magazines to do their maximum damage. The story of the grandmother who could reload in less of a second was trotted out, along with the examples of Columbine and Virginia Tech, etc. Now suddenly you're arguing that while mass shooters don't need them, private citizens DO need them to prevent home invasions. That's a complete contradiction.Furthermore, I'm calling BS on this whole argument. I believe that the gun owners who use high capacity magazines do so because it's fun to fire them off at shooting ranges. It's for pleasure, not personal protection. Someone offered the compromise that perhaps these mags could be available at shooting ranges; you could rent them and still enjoy the use of them. I would have no problem with that.

My argument for home defense vs shooting spree was in preparedness. The mass shooter can pack as many low cap mags and situate them as available as he wants because he dictates when the action happens. The home defender is most often caught off guard.ETA - Yes. The most common need / want for high cap mags is for fun. The most practical is for defense.

Do you discount my (estimated) probability for a difference made in the above scenario? Equal harm to equal good either way it goes. Lives saved vs lives lost? Is my argument for the numbers of a multiple invader scenario valid, or at least close enough to call it valid?

Yes, I think you make a good theoretical. But that only proves that you are a creative thinker- it doesn't apply to reality. On behalf of my argument I have not limited myself to theory. I provided what I believe to be two good examples: Jared Loughner, and the Appalachian shooter (which I admit I did not know about until today.) I also provided the testimony of law enforcement officials that mass shootings often stop when the shooter is tackled while attempting to reload. I think these are all strong arguments; I know you disagree. I would put much more stock in your argument if there was an example of someone, who was armed, who failed to prevent a home invasion, but would have succeeded if only he had high capacity magazines. Without that kind of example, your argument IMO seems far more whimsical than mine.

 

[Apple Jack]

Do I make sense that an equal number of home invasion / defensive shooting situations would be an equal savings to life compared to an equal number of spree shootings (assuming high-cap mags made a difference vs low-cap mags making the same difference the other way)?

No. Because invasions tend to be either one to one or thereabouts. Mass killings do not.

from wiki:

Home invasion differs from burglary in having a violent intent, specific or general, much the same way as aggravated robbery—personally taking from someone by force—is differentiated from mere larceny (theft alone). As the term becomes more frequently used, particularly by the media, "home invasion" is evolving to identify a particular class of crime that involves multiple perpetrators (two or more); forced entry into a home; occupants who are home at the time of the invasion; use of weapons and physical intimidation; property theft; and victims who are unknown to the perpetrators.

Literally laughed out loud at this one.

Do you always laugh out load when you've been ?

His defense was that somebody posted a new definition on wiki of a word I was using. I was talking about home invasion. That means you're home being invaded by somebody who shouldn't be there. Somebody on wiki says that should mean multiple people, so this guy thinks that means everybody's being invaded by multiple people. C'mon...that's funny.ETA: Regardless, we're not talking about the kind of numbers that justified a need for high capacity clips.

You still do not know what home invasion means, what you just described is the same thing as a burglary/larceny.

I never said it means EVERYBODY's being invaded by multiple people. It is trending in the media to mean multiple people.

Oh, okay.

 

[Henry Ford]

Do I make sense that an equal number of home invasion / defensive shooting situations would be an equal savings to life compared to an equal number of spree shootings (assuming high-cap mags made a difference vs low-cap mags making the same difference the other way)?

No. Because invasions tend to be either one to one or thereabouts. Mass killings do not.

from wiki:

Home invasion differs from burglary in having a violent intent, specific or general, much the same way as aggravated robbery—personally taking from someone by force—is differentiated from mere larceny (theft alone). As the term becomes more frequently used, particularly by the media, "home invasion" is evolving to identify a particular class of crime that involves multiple perpetrators (two or more); forced entry into a home; occupants who are home at the time of the invasion; use of weapons and physical intimidation; property theft; and victims who are unknown to the perpetrators.

Literally laughed out loud at this one.

Do you always laugh out load when you've been ?

His defense was that somebody posted a new definition on wiki of a word I was using. I was talking about home invasion. That means you're home being invaded by somebody who shouldn't be there. Somebody on wiki says that should mean multiple people, so this guy thinks that means everybody's being invaded by multiple people. C'mon...that's funny.ETA: Regardless, we're not talking about the kind of numbers that justified a need for high capacity clips.

You still do not know what home invasion means, what you just described is the same thing as a burglary/larceny.I never said it means EVERYBODY's being invaded by multiple people. It is trending in the media to mean multiple people.

That ought to be really relevant when the media can define crimes. Until then, we should probably stick with what various legislatures and law enforcement agencies define home invasion to mean.

 

[Slingblade]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

They attacked him when he ran out of mags, not while he was reloading.There is no evidence in that shooting that they attacked him when he was reloading.

He could have just as easily had more loaded mags to use.

This hurts your point, not helps it, moron.

 

[timschochet]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

They attacked him when he ran out of mags, not while he was reloading.There is no evidence in that shooting that they attacked him when he was reloading.

He could have just as easily had more loaded mags to use.

This hurts your point, not helps it, moron.

Of all the posters in this thread, you are by far the most unpleasant.

 

[Slingblade]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

They attacked him when he ran out of mags, not while he was reloading.There is no evidence in that shooting that they attacked him when he was reloading.

He could have just as easily had more loaded mags to use.

This hurts your point, not helps it, moron.

Of all the posters in this thread, you are by far the most unpleasant.

Right back at you.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Do I make sense that an equal number of home invasion / defensive shooting situations would be an equal savings to life compared to an equal number of spree shootings (assuming high-cap mags made a difference vs low-cap mags making the same difference the other way)?

No. Because invasions tend to be either one to one or thereabouts. Mass killings do not.

from wiki:

Home invasion differs from burglary in having a violent intent, specific or general, much the same way as aggravated robbery—personally taking from someone by force—is differentiated from mere larceny (theft alone). As the term becomes more frequently used, particularly by the media, "home invasion" is evolving to identify a particular class of crime that involves multiple perpetrators (two or more); forced entry into a home; occupants who are home at the time of the invasion; use of weapons and physical intimidation; property theft; and victims who are unknown to the perpetrators.

Literally laughed out loud at this one.

Do you always laugh out load when you've been ?

His defense was that somebody posted a new definition on wiki of a word I was using. I was talking about home invasion. That means you're home being invaded by somebody who shouldn't be there. Somebody on wiki says that should mean multiple people, so this guy thinks that means everybody's being invaded by multiple people. C'mon...that's funny.ETA: Regardless, we're not talking about the kind of numbers that justified a need for high capacity clips.

You still do not know what home invasion means, what you just described is the same thing as a burglary/larceny.I never said it means EVERYBODY's being invaded by multiple people. It is trending in the media to mean multiple people.

That ought to be really relevant when the media can define crimes. Until then, we should probably stick with what various legislatures and law enforcement agencies define home invasion to mean.

Feel free to show me the stats that back up AJ's claim that home invasions (differing from burglaries since they exhibit a violent intent) are mostly 1 on 1 encounters. You won't find a consistent definition of home invasion in the FBI's UCR's. IMO It's common sense if you are prepared to encounter multiple people in a domicile (i.e. this isn't a smash and grab) and your intent is to inflict harm that you will have an accomplice.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

NYPD 2005 Firearms Discharge Report

Number Of Incidents Outdoors: 49

Number Of Incidents Indoors: 74

Members' Accuracy At Distance Fired:

00 - 02 Yds

Uniformed Members Of Service: 64

Number Of Shots Fired: 127

Number Of Hits: 65

Percentage Of Hits: 51

03 - 07 Yds

Uniformed Members Of Service: 44

Number Of Shots Fired: 155

Number Of Hits: 68

Percentage Of Hits: 44

08 - 15 Yds

Uniformed Members Of Service: 40

Number Of Shots Fired: 205

Number Of Hits: 14

Percentage Of Hits: 7

16 - 25 Yds

Uniformed Members Of Service: 7

Number Of Shots Fired: 93

Number Of Hits: 5

Percentage Of Hits: 5

Over 25 Yds

Uniformed Members Of Service: 0

Number Of Shots Fired: 0

Number Of Hits: 0

Percentage Of Hits: 0

Not Stated

Uniformed Members Of Service: 11

Number Of Shots Fired: 36

Number Of Hits: 2

Percentage Of Hits: 6

Totals ('05)

Uniformed Members Of Service: 166

Number Of Shots Fired: 616

Number Of Hits: 154

Percentage Of Hits: 25

25% hit rate from a well trained police officer

10 rounds means an above average shooter should be lucky to hit twice

Congrats, if 10 round magazines pass, families using handguns will now barely have the resources to defend themselves against only 1 intruder during life threatening home invasions, and that is assuming 2 bullets will always be enough to impede 1 intruder.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Texas' firearm protection act:http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/magnolia/news/state-rep-steve-toth-to-file-firearm-protection-act/article_870f2cd6-5d11-11e2-9ddb-0019bb2963f4.html

AUSTIN – State Rep. Steve Toth (R-The Woodlands) has begun the process to file legislation assisting the protection of the Second Amendment of the United State Constitution.The “Firearms Protection Act” bill would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries. Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.“We can no longer depend on the Federal Government and this Administration to uphold a Constitution that they no longer believe in. The liberties of the People of Texas and the sovereignty of our State are too important to just let the Federal Government take them away. The overreach of the federal administrations executive orders that do not align with the Constitution, are not very popular here in Texas,” said Toth.Along with Wyoming, Texas will lead the country in continuing to stand for the sovereignty to run Texas as Texans see fit while exercising the Bill of Rights Amendments 2& 10 to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers … [to] extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.”Along with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has already filed more than 23 suits against the Federal Government, Toth will continue to stand with other Texans to encouraging the promotion of personal responsibility and liberties while actively guarding against outside parties attempting to erode the freedoms enjoyed by Texans so that the people of Texas may have more confidence in their government.For more information contact, Amy Lane, Chief of Staff at 512-463-0797. Steve Toth is the newly elected State Representative for District 15, which includes The Woodlands, Shenandoah, Imperial Oaks, Oak Ridge North and Benders Landing along with some of the surrounding areas. He lives and works in District 15 and is establishing a House District 15 Office in Alden Bridge near the corner of Research Forest and Kuykendahl that he hopes to open by February of this coming year.

 

[Novice2]

NYPD 2005 Firearms Discharge Report

Number Of Incidents Outdoors: 49

Number Of Incidents Indoors: 74

Members' Accuracy At Distance Fired:

00 - 02 Yds

Uniformed Members Of Service: 64

Number Of Shots Fired: 127

Number Of Hits: 65

Percentage Of Hits: 51

03 - 07 Yds

Uniformed Members Of Service: 44

Number Of Shots Fired: 155

Number Of Hits: 68

Percentage Of Hits: 44

08 - 15 Yds

Uniformed Members Of Service: 40

Number Of Shots Fired: 205

Number Of Hits: 14

Percentage Of Hits: 7

16 - 25 Yds

Uniformed Members Of Service: 7

Number Of Shots Fired: 93

Number Of Hits: 5

Percentage Of Hits: 5

Over 25 Yds

Uniformed Members Of Service: 0

Number Of Shots Fired: 0

Number Of Hits: 0

Percentage Of Hits: 0

Not Stated

Uniformed Members Of Service: 11

Number Of Shots Fired: 36

Number Of Hits: 2

Percentage Of Hits: 6

Totals ('05)

Uniformed Members Of Service: 166

Number Of Shots Fired: 616

Number Of Hits: 154

Percentage Of Hits: 25

25% hit rate from a well trained police officer

10 rounds means an above average shooter should be lucky to hit twice

Congrats, if 10 round magazines pass, families using handguns will now barely have the resources to defend themselves against only 1 intruder during life threatening home invasions, and that is assuming 2 bullets will always be enough to impede 1 intruder.

Lucky for them this ban does little as they can go an stock up on all the 30 round mags they need now while liberals feel better about themselves for saving the children by making the purchase of them illegal a month from now.

 

[Hoosier16]

I appreciate your view but disagree. Homeowners can reload as easily as a Perp. Saying the effect is negligible doesn't mean it's unimportant. I think saving a negligible amount of lives is worth it. I understand why you disagree.

I argue that it will save as many lives as it costs both ways. If spree killers can kill an extra 3 people, twice a year, costing 6 lives... I argue that home owners would be able to stop an extra perp 3 times a year, saving (assuming most homes have more than one occupant) 6 lives. It is assumed, by me, that the lives saved by a ban would be sacrificed on the other side, and that the lives saved by allowing high-caps would be sacrificed on the other side as well. 1:1 (approximately) doing nobody any good. It would be doing bad (from my viewpoint) by allowing Feds more control over our lives and basic rights as human beings.

That's a reasonable view point. I suppose I'm not (so far) willing to acknowledge that a person defending their home is any more likely to be successful if they have a large magazine. What kind of home invasions continue after the perp realizes the victim is armed at all? How many continue after the victim has fired 10 rounds? I realize these numbers are hard to quantify but my guess (yes, a guess) is that if 10 bullets don't defend you than 500 bullets wasn't likely to help much either.

OK. So we're in the same ballpark anyways. Consider what was said a few pages back about the preparedness of somebody sleeping in their underwear. Do they have the facilities to carry multiple low-cap mags or just grab the nearest weapon and go for it. If there are multiple armed assailants (you don't know when wakened from a dead sleep, or they coax you to open the door to a cute, young female "selling magazine subscriptions"), could they adequately defend their home / family if hit % is 40% for stress trained cops, and it takes an average of 4 hits to incapacitate a man. Yes, many assailants will run at the first sign of equally armed resistance. SOME WILL FIGHT. Would 10 rounds be enough if you are going to average 4 hits per 10 round mag when each assailant could absorb 4 hits? If there are three? Four? Very slim percentages would fit this scenario, but in this scenario would 30 rounds vs 10 make a difference?

Yay? Nay? Bueller... Bueller? Test me, mother ####ers. I'm drinking tonight. I should be an easy fight now.

Fry... Fry...

The problem with this argument is that, for many days now, you and others have been arguing that mass shooters do not need high capacity magazines to do their maximum damage. The story of the grandmother who could reload in less of a second was trotted out, along with the examples of Columbine and Virginia Tech, etc. Now suddenly you're arguing that while mass shooters don't need them, private citizens DO need them to prevent home invasions. That's a complete contradiction.

It's not a contradiction at all. It's actually very easy to understand, if you're willing to try.A mass shooter is up against unarmed opponents. Nobody is storming the shooter. A home defender is usually up against armed opponents. Seconds might matter. Which person do you (and Abe) think would be more in need of the higher capacity magazines?

 

[Novice2]

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge. ............. "We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president," said Ball who represents part of the Hudson Valley. "We have taken an entire category of firearms that are currently legal that are in the homes of law-abiding, tax paying citizens. ... We are now turning those law-abiding citizens into criminals."

 

[Novice2]

Texas' firearm protection act:http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/magnolia/news/state-rep-steve-toth-to-file-firearm-protection-act/article_870f2cd6-5d11-11e2-9ddb-0019bb2963f4.html

AUSTIN – State Rep. Steve Toth (R-The Woodlands) has begun the process to file legislation assisting the protection of the Second Amendment of the United State Constitution.The “Firearms Protection Act” bill would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries. Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.“We can no longer depend on the Federal Government and this Administration to uphold a Constitution that they no longer believe in. The liberties of the People of Texas and the sovereignty of our State are too important to just let the Federal Government take them away. The overreach of the federal administrations executive orders that do not align with the Constitution, are not very popular here in Texas,” said Toth.Along with Wyoming, Texas will lead the country in continuing to stand for the sovereignty to run Texas as Texans see fit while exercising the Bill of Rights Amendments 2& 10 to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers … [to] extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.”Along with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has already filed more than 23 suits against the Federal Government, Toth will continue to stand with other Texans to encouraging the promotion of personal responsibility and liberties while actively guarding against outside parties attempting to erode the freedoms enjoyed by Texans so that the people of Texas may have more confidence in their government.For more information contact, Amy Lane, Chief of Staff at 512-463-0797. Steve Toth is the newly elected State Representative for District 15, which includes The Woodlands, Shenandoah, Imperial Oaks, Oak Ridge North and Benders Landing along with some of the surrounding areas. He lives and works in District 15 and is establishing a House District 15 Office in Alden Bridge near the corner of Research Forest and Kuykendahl that he hopes to open by February of this coming year.

Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional! The States have no rights to overturn federal laws. Unless it deals with wacky weed

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Texas' firearm protection act:http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/magnolia/news/state-rep-steve-toth-to-file-firearm-protection-act/article_870f2cd6-5d11-11e2-9ddb-0019bb2963f4.html

AUSTIN – State Rep. Steve Toth (R-The Woodlands) has begun the process to file legislation assisting the protection of the Second Amendment of the United State Constitution.The “Firearms Protection Act” bill would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries. Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.“We can no longer depend on the Federal Government and this Administration to uphold a Constitution that they no longer believe in. The liberties of the People of Texas and the sovereignty of our State are too important to just let the Federal Government take them away. The overreach of the federal administrations executive orders that do not align with the Constitution, are not very popular here in Texas,” said Toth.Along with Wyoming, Texas will lead the country in continuing to stand for the sovereignty to run Texas as Texans see fit while exercising the Bill of Rights Amendments 2& 10 to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers … [to] extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.”Along with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has already filed more than 23 suits against the Federal Government, Toth will continue to stand with other Texans to encouraging the promotion of personal responsibility and liberties while actively guarding against outside parties attempting to erode the freedoms enjoyed by Texans so that the people of Texas may have more confidence in their government.For more information contact, Amy Lane, Chief of Staff at 512-463-0797. Steve Toth is the newly elected State Representative for District 15, which includes The Woodlands, Shenandoah, Imperial Oaks, Oak Ridge North and Benders Landing along with some of the surrounding areas. He lives and works in District 15 and is establishing a House District 15 Office in Alden Bridge near the corner of Research Forest and Kuykendahl that he hopes to open by February of this coming year.

Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional! The States have no rights to overturn federal laws. Unless it deals with wacky weed

Seems like a pre-emptive strike and a long shot at that.

 

[cobalt_27]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

They attacked him when he ran out of mags, not while he was reloading.There is no evidence in that shooting that they attacked him when he was reloading.

He could have just as easily had more loaded mags to use.

This hurts your point, not helps it, moron.

And, Slingblade should know a moron when he sees one. He has a high IQ, if anyone missed this from earlier in the thread. He's really, really smart because he told us he is. Or because an internet IQ test told him he is. He would be able to sniff out a moron, and he would know that calling someone a moron here on the boards is also totally acceptable behavior.

 

[Sammy3469]

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge. ............. "We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president," said Ball who represents part of the Hudson Valley. "We have taken an entire category of firearms that are currently legal that are in the homes of law-abiding, tax paying citizens. ... We are now turning those law-abiding citizens into criminals."

Yippee!

 

[Henry Ford]

Do I make sense that an equal number of home invasion / defensive shooting situations would be an equal savings to life compared to an equal number of spree shootings (assuming high-cap mags made a difference vs low-cap mags making the same difference the other way)?

No. Because invasions tend to be either one to one or thereabouts. Mass killings do not.

from wiki:

Home invasion differs from burglary in having a violent intent, specific or general, much the same way as aggravated robbery—personally taking from someone by force—is differentiated from mere larceny (theft alone). As the term becomes more frequently used, particularly by the media, "home invasion" is evolving to identify a particular class of crime that involves multiple perpetrators (two or more); forced entry into a home; occupants who are home at the time of the invasion; use of weapons and physical intimidation; property theft; and victims who are unknown to the perpetrators.

Literally laughed out loud at this one.

Do you always laugh out load when you've been ?

His defense was that somebody posted a new definition on wiki of a word I was using. I was talking about home invasion. That means you're home being invaded by somebody who shouldn't be there. Somebody on wiki says that should mean multiple people, so this guy thinks that means everybody's being invaded by multiple people. C'mon...that's funny.ETA: Regardless, we're not talking about the kind of numbers that justified a need for high capacity clips.

You still do not know what home invasion means, what you just described is the same thing as a burglary/larceny.I never said it means EVERYBODY's being invaded by multiple people. It is trending in the media to mean multiple people.

That ought to be really relevant when the media can define crimes. Until then, we should probably stick with what various legislatures and law enforcement agencies define home invasion to mean.

Feel free to show me the stats that back up AJ's claim that home invasions (differing from burglaries since they exhibit a violent intent) are mostly 1 on 1 encounters. You won't find a consistent definition of home invasion in the FBI's UCR's. IMO It's common sense if you are prepared to encounter multiple people in a domicile (i.e. this isn't a smash and grab) and your intent is to inflict harm that you will have an accomplice.

There's a somewhat consistent legislative definition. Most of the states I'm aware of define a home invasion as a burglary where the home is occupied at the time.

 

[Abraham]

The universal background checks can not be accomplished without a registry and database.

This is ridiculous. Of course it can be accomplished without a gun registry and database. Unless you did a poor job making your point, every gun sold can be run through a database of felons and people with mental health issues. That doesn't require registering the gun or even disclosing what kind of gun is being purchased. A simple, "Fred Smith of 123 Fake Street, SS# ending in 4444 is being submitted to the database that says he can or can not legally buy a gun."That brings me to another point not oft addressed: why does it seem 2nd amendment proponents only have the talking points necessary to "preserve" the rights they themselves want? I've never seen an NRA letter about how it infringes on the 2nd amendment to keep felons from owning guns (among other things). Where is the outrage there?

I appreciate your view but disagree. Homeowners can reload as easily as a Perp. Saying the effect is negligible doesn't mean it's unimportant. I think saving a negligible amount of lives is worth it. I understand why you disagree.

I argue that it will save as many lives as it costs both ways. If spree killers can kill an extra 3 people, twice a year, costing 6 lives... I argue that home owners would be able to stop an extra perp 3 times a year, saving (assuming most homes have more than one occupant) 6 lives. It is assumed, by me, that the lives saved by a ban would be sacrificed on the other side, and that the lives saved by allowing high-caps would be sacrificed on the other side as well. 1:1 (approximately) doing nobody any good. It would be doing bad (from my viewpoint) by allowing Feds more control over our lives and basic rights as human beings.

That's a reasonable view point. I suppose I'm not (so far) willing to acknowledge that a person defending their home is any more likely to be successful if they have a large magazine. What kind of home invasions continue after the perp realizes the victim is armed at all? How many continue after the victim has fired 10 rounds? I realize these numbers are hard to quantify but my guess (yes, a guess) is that if 10 bullets don't defend you than 500 bullets wasn't likely to help much either.

OK. So we're in the same ballpark anyways. Consider what was said a few pages back about the preparedness of somebody sleeping in their underwear. Do they have the facilities to carry multiple low-cap mags or just grab the nearest weapon and go for it. If there are multiple armed assailants (you don't know when wakened from a dead sleep, or they coax you to open the door to a cute, young female "selling magazine subscriptions"), could they adequately defend their home / family if hit % is 40% for stress trained cops, and it takes an average of 4 hits to incapacitate a man. Yes, many assailants will run at the first sign of equally armed resistance. SOME WILL FIGHT. Would 10 rounds be enough if you are going to average 4 hits per 10 round mag when each assailant could absorb 4 hits? If there are three? Four? Very slim percentages would fit this scenario, but in this scenario would 30 rounds vs 10 make a difference?

Yay? Nay? Bueller... Bueller? Test me, mother ####ers. I'm drinking tonight. I should be an easy fight now.

Fry... Fry...

The problem with this argument is that, for many days now, you and others have been arguing that mass shooters do not need high capacity magazines to do their maximum damage. The story of the grandmother who could reload in less of a second was trotted out, along with the examples of Columbine and Virginia Tech, etc. Now suddenly you're arguing that while mass shooters don't need them, private citizens DO need them to prevent home invasions. That's a complete contradiction.

It's not a contradiction at all. It's actually very easy to understand, if you're willing to try.A mass shooter is up against unarmed opponents. Nobody is storming the shooter. A home defender is usually up against armed opponents. Seconds might matter. Which person do you (and Abe) think would be more in need of the higher capacity magazines?

Neat.I don't think ANYONE is in need of higher capacity magazines. Using the logic above, we should let the home defender have claymore mines and a street-sweeper (yeah, I know a few things about guns). The problem with your argument IMO is that it, once again, preserves/protects the freedoms as you want them (high volume cartridges) for the reasons you state (home defense) and ignores the other parts of gun ownership (sport, crime, etc.)

To your example: 25-40% hit percentage? Good lord. Saying that a person defending their home needs more than 10 bullets because they are only going to hit something 2 to 4 out of ten times, and that it will take 4 hits to incapacitate someone is embarrassing to the shooter and the gun industry. "But they just woke up! And it's dark! And there could be three assailants each needing to be fired at ten times to hit them 4 times to incapacitate them!" Take all those people back to the store and have them trade in all of their cool pistols and whatever else that they have trouble aiming and get a pump action twelve gauge. The hit percentage is substantially higher in close quarters and I'm fairly certain it won't take four shots to incapacitate someone.

 

[Hoosier16]

To your example: 25-40% hit percentage? Good lord. Saying that a person defending their home needs more than 10 bullets because they are only going to hit something 2 to 4 out of ten times, and that it will take 4 hits to incapacitate someone is embarrassing to the shooter and the gun industry. "But they just woke up! And it's dark! And there could be three assailants each needing to be fired at ten times to hit them 4 times to incapacitate them!" Take all those people back to the store and have them trade in all of their cool pistols and whatever else that they have trouble aiming and get a pump action twelve gauge. The hit percentage is substantially higher in close quarters and I'm fairly certain it won't take four shots to incapacitate someone.

I think you misread the posts on those stats. Those don't have anything to do with the accuracy of home defenders. That is the accuracy of trained policeman.

 

[timschochet]

Texas' firearm protection act:http://www.yourhoust...19bb2963f4.html

AUSTIN – State Rep. Steve Toth (R-The Woodlands) has begun the process to file legislation assisting the protection of the Second Amendment of the United State Constitution.The "Firearms Protection Act" bill would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state's boundaries. Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal."We can no longer depend on the Federal Government and this Administration to uphold a Constitution that they no longer believe in. The liberties of the People of Texas and the sovereignty of our State are too important to just let the Federal Government take them away. The overreach of the federal administrations executive orders that do not align with the Constitution, are not very popular here in Texas," said Toth.Along with Wyoming, Texas will lead the country in continuing to stand for the sovereignty to run Texas as Texans see fit while exercising the Bill of Rights Amendments 2& 10 to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers … [to] extending the ground of public confidence in the Government."Along with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has already filed more than 23 suits against the Federal Government, Toth will continue to stand with other Texans to encouraging the promotion of personal responsibility and liberties while actively guarding against outside parties attempting to erode the freedoms enjoyed by Texans so that the people of Texas may have more confidence in their government.For more information contact, Amy Lane, Chief of Staff at 512-463-0797. Steve Toth is the newly elected State Representative for District 15, which includes The Woodlands, Shenandoah, Imperial Oaks, Oak Ridge North and Benders Landing along with some of the surrounding areas. He lives and works in District 15 and is establishing a House District 15 Office in Alden Bridge near the corner of Research Forest and Kuykendahl that he hopes to open by February of this coming year.

I think they will have no choice except to secede.

 

[Hoosier16]

The problem with this argument is that, for many days now, you and others have been arguing that mass shooters do not need high capacity magazines to do their maximum damage. The story of the grandmother who could reload in less of a second was trotted out, along with the examples of Columbine and Virginia Tech, etc. Now suddenly you're arguing that while mass shooters don't need them, private citizens DO need them to prevent home invasions. That's a complete contradiction.

It's not a contradiction at all. It's actually very easy to understand, if you're willing to try.A mass shooter is up against unarmed opponents. Nobody is storming the shooter. A home defender is usually up against armed opponents. Seconds might matter. Which person do you (and Abe) think would be more in need of the higher capacity magazines?

The problem with your argument IMO is that it, once again, preserves/protects the freedoms as you want them (high volume cartridges) for the reasons you state (home defense) and ignores the other parts of gun ownership (sport, crime, etc.)

I'm not sure what your point is here. Does there have to be a need in all areas of use for there to be considered a need? I don't think I ignored anything. I just explained why there isn't a contradiction - that there might be more of a need in one instance (against armed) than another (against unarmed).

 

[Abraham]

To your example: 25-40% hit percentage? Good lord. Saying that a person defending their home needs more than 10 bullets because they are only going to hit something 2 to 4 out of ten times, and that it will take 4 hits to incapacitate someone is embarrassing to the shooter and the gun industry. "But they just woke up! And it's dark! And there could be three assailants each needing to be fired at ten times to hit them 4 times to incapacitate them!" Take all those people back to the store and have them trade in all of their cool pistols and whatever else that they have trouble aiming and get a pump action twelve gauge. The hit percentage is substantially higher in close quarters and I'm fairly certain it won't take four shots to incapacitate someone.

I think you misread the posts on those stats. Those don't have anything to do with the accuracy of home defenders. That is the accuracy of trained policeman.

That's arguably even worse, although I can see how police officers have a low hit %. I imagine most times when an officer discharges their firearm it is from a longer distance (as in a standoff). That said, I thought someone had posted that home-defenders have simiilarly low rates of return on each bullet fired.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/us/politics/biden-meets-with-house-democrats-on-gun-violence-proposals.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

Well, based on the above New York times article, I now have a feeling that you guys that have been arguing against me are going to win the day, and nothing concrete is going to happen. Two reasons:

1. As I feared, Obama is pushing for ONE comprehensive bill that includes all of his major points, such as the background checks, limiting mags, and banning certain firearms. This makes it much more easy to defeat, IMO. I can't see any way such a bill would make it through the House of Representatives, given it's current composition. Individual bills might have had a chance, but not this one. It appears once again that the Obama administration is more interested in making the GOP look bad to the public than they are in actually accomplishing anything.

2. While Obama is willing to use executive orders, he won't use them for any of the key issues. Per the article:

Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.

White House aides believe Mr. Obama can also ratchet up enforcement of existing laws, including tougher prosecution of people who lie on their background checks.

This stuff is window dressing. The major stuff we've been talking about has to go through Congress, and Congress is not going to agree to a comprehensive deal. That's my guess.

 

[tom22406]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/us/politics/biden-meets-with-house-democrats-on-gun-violence-proposals.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

Well, based on the above New York times article, I now have a feeling that you guys that have been arguing against me are going to win the day, and nothing concrete is going to happen. Two reasons:

1. As I feared, Obama is pushing for ONE comprehensive bill that includes all of his major points, such as the background checks, limiting mags, and banning certain firearms. This makes it much more easy to defeat, IMO. I can't see any way such a bill would make it through the House of Representatives, given it's current composition. Individual bills might have had a chance, but not this one. It appears once again that the Obama administration is more interested in making the GOP look bad to the public than they are in actually accomplishing anything.

2. While Obama is willing to use executive orders, he won't use them for any of the key issues. Per the article:

Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.

White House aides believe Mr. Obama can also ratchet up enforcement of existing laws, including tougher prosecution of people who lie on their background checks.

This stuff is window dressing. The major stuff we've been talking about has to go through Congress, and Congress is not going to agree to a comprehensive deal. That's my guess.

All about politics.Shocked I tell ya!

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The bill that Obama proposes to Congress doesn't necessarily have to closely resemble the bill that gets voted on. Bills get amended all the time.

 

[Abraham]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/us/politics/biden-meets-with-house-democrats-on-gun-violence-proposals.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

Well, based on the above New York times article, I now have a feeling that you guys that have been arguing against me are going to win the day, and nothing concrete is going to happen. Two reasons:

1. As I feared, Obama is pushing for ONE comprehensive bill that includes all of his major points, such as the background checks, limiting mags, and banning certain firearms. This makes it much more easy to defeat, IMO. I can't see any way such a bill would make it through the House of Representatives, given it's current composition. Individual bills might have had a chance, but not this one. It appears once again that the Obama administration is more interested in making the GOP look bad to the public than they are in actually accomplishing anything.

2. While Obama is willing to use executive orders, he won't use them for any of the key issues. Per the article:

Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.

White House aides believe Mr. Obama can also ratchet up enforcement of existing laws, including tougher prosecution of people who lie on their background checks.

This stuff is window dressing. The major stuff we've been talking about has to go through Congress, and Congress is not going to agree to a comprehensive deal. That's my guess.

I thought you were smarter than this. Obama knows that there is absolutely no way a Federal "one size fits all" set of laws is ever going to stand up to scrutiny. Next to entitlements, there is no larger political land mine than guns and even if he had a 70% approval rating he couldn't get anything with teeth passed.What he CAN do is use the Biden-group-summit-thing to keep the conversation on the boiler. And then his staff can start picking off states one at a time a la New York. If you think Andrew Cuomo and Co. did their bit without the prodding of people in Washington than you are mistaken. The WH fingerprints are all over the New York stuff...you don't think the DNC and the President told Cuomo he'd be very popular with the national party if he moved first on guns?

 

[Hoosier16]

To your example: 25-40% hit percentage? Good lord. Saying that a person defending their home needs more than 10 bullets because they are only going to hit something 2 to 4 out of ten times, and that it will take 4 hits to incapacitate someone is embarrassing to the shooter and the gun industry. "But they just woke up! And it's dark! And there could be three assailants each needing to be fired at ten times to hit them 4 times to incapacitate them!" Take all those people back to the store and have them trade in all of their cool pistols and whatever else that they have trouble aiming and get a pump action twelve gauge. The hit percentage is substantially higher in close quarters and I'm fairly certain it won't take four shots to incapacitate someone.

I think you misread the posts on those stats. Those don't have anything to do with the accuracy of home defenders. That is the accuracy of trained policeman.

That's arguably even worse, although I can see how police officers have a low hit %. I imagine most times when an officer discharges their firearm it is from a longer distance (as in a standoff). That said, I thought someone had posted that home-defenders have simiilarly low rates of return on each bullet fired.

I think Cookie made that suggestion - that if the police were only that good, a home defender was at best that accurate. If you look a little higher on this page, 5 digit posted the hit rates at different ranges. It's pretty poor, even at close range.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.nytimes.c...odayspaper&_r=0

Well, based on the above New York times article, I now have a feeling that you guys that have been arguing against me are going to win the day, and nothing concrete is going to happen. Two reasons:

1. As I feared, Obama is pushing for ONE comprehensive bill that includes all of his major points, such as the background checks, limiting mags, and banning certain firearms. This makes it much more easy to defeat, IMO. I can't see any way such a bill would make it through the House of Representatives, given it's current composition. Individual bills might have had a chance, but not this one. It appears once again that the Obama administration is more interested in making the GOP look bad to the public than they are in actually accomplishing anything.

2. While Obama is willing to use executive orders, he won't use them for any of the key issues. Per the article:

Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.

White House aides believe Mr. Obama can also ratchet up enforcement of existing laws, including tougher prosecution of people who lie on their background checks.

This stuff is window dressing. The major stuff we've been talking about has to go through Congress, and Congress is not going to agree to a comprehensive deal. That's my guess.

I thought you were smarter than this. Obama knows that there is absolutely no way a Federal "one size fits all" set of laws is ever going to stand up to scrutiny. Next to entitlements, there is no larger political land mine than guns and even if he had a 70% approval rating he couldn't get anything with teeth passed.What he CAN do is use the Biden-group-summit-thing to keep the conversation on the boiler. And then his staff can start picking off states one at a time a la New York. If you think Andrew Cuomo and Co. did their bit without the prodding of people in Washington than you are mistaken. The WH fingerprints are all over the New York stuff...you don't think the DNC and the President told Cuomo he'd be very popular with the national party if he moved first on guns?

Whatever. As I wrote earlier in the thread, I don't think these sorts or laws at the state level matter very much. My own state has had bans on high capacity mags for years, but anyone who wants to can drive to a Nevada gun show and buy one. Same with background checks. IMO these things only work on a federal level. You can certainly call me naive, but I was hoping that Newtown would have changed the environment enough to get some of these modest proposals through. The stuff I've been in favor of is far less imposing than the AWB which passed in 1994. But I was wrong.

 

[rascal]

WTF!?!?!?http://news.yahoo.com/nras-shooting-app-4-olds-150500493.html

 

[timschochet]

WTF!?!?!?http://news.yahoo.co...-150500493.html

They're certainly consistent.

 

[17seconds]

WTF!?!?!?http://news.yahoo.co...-150500493.html

They're certainly consistent.

There's a reason they are called the National Rifle Association and not something like the National Association of Gun Owners.Their interest is to promote guns. Every single position they take has an underlying objective of growing the gun market.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

25% hit rate from a well trained police officer10 rounds means an above average shooter should be lucky to hit twiceCongrats, if 10 round magazines pass, families using handguns will now barely have the resources to defend themselves against only 1 intruder during life threatening home invasions, and that is assuming 2 bullets will always be enough to impede 1 intruder.

A huge majority of the time, zero bullets will be enough to impede multiple intruders. By far the most common use of a gun, when it comes to self-defense, is pointing it at someone and telling him to go away. It usually need not be fired.Normally, I'd make this point in response to some numskull who says that the only purpose of guns is to kill people; but I think it's worth pointing out in this context as well.

 

[Henry Ford]

25% hit rate from a well trained police officer10 rounds means an above average shooter should be lucky to hit twiceCongrats, if 10 round magazines pass, families using handguns will now barely have the resources to defend themselves against only 1 intruder during life threatening home invasions, and that is assuming 2 bullets will always be enough to impede 1 intruder.

A huge majority of the time, zero bullets will be enough to impede multiple intruders. By far the most common use of a gun, when it comes to self-defense, is pointing it at someone and telling him to go away. It usually need not be fired.Normally, I'd make this point in response to some numskull who says that the only purpose of guns is to kill people; but I think it's worth pointing out in this context as well.

It's also worth noting that in the data set he quoted:40% of the incidents were outside, not inside.The hit percentage was over 45% within 26 feet of the shooter.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

25% hit rate from a well trained police officer10 rounds means an above average shooter should be lucky to hit twiceCongrats, if 10 round magazines pass, families using handguns will now barely have the resources to defend themselves against only 1 intruder during life threatening home invasions, and that is assuming 2 bullets will always be enough to impede 1 intruder.

A huge majority of the time, zero bullets will be enough to impede multiple intruders. By far the most common use of a gun, when it comes to self-defense, is pointing it at someone and telling him to go away. It usually need not be fired.Normally, I'd make this point in response to some numskull who says that the only purpose of guns is to kill people; but I think it's worth pointing out in this context as well.

Correct, I think this helps draw the line between burglary and home invasion. Burglaries are often 1 person jobs just looking for a quick score without any resistance, home invasions there is intent to do harm if met by resistance.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

25% hit rate from a well trained police officer10 rounds means an above average shooter should be lucky to hit twiceCongrats, if 10 round magazines pass, families using handguns will now barely have the resources to defend themselves against only 1 intruder during life threatening home invasions, and that is assuming 2 bullets will always be enough to impede 1 intruder.

A huge majority of the time, zero bullets will be enough to impede multiple intruders. By far the most common use of a gun, when it comes to self-defense, is pointing it at someone and telling him to go away. It usually need not be fired.Normally, I'd make this point in response to some numskull who says that the only purpose of guns is to kill people; but I think it's worth pointing out in this context as well.

It's also worth noting that in the data set he quoted:40% of the incidents were outside, not inside.The hit percentage was over 45% within 26 feet of the shooter.

I wouldn't discount the last stat just because no range was recorded on the round usage. Also realize when an officer uses their weapon they are often responding to a crime in progress and not as likely to be caught off guard and will be more mentally prepared (both training and just mentally prepared for the situation going into it) for the usage of their weapon. I wouldn't translate that percentage over to home defenders. It is fine to state everyone should have a shotgun in their home so accuracy is not as much of a concern, but now you are talking about a larger weapon to store and have to get to assuming it is not laying against their bed post. People often cite use of a pistol as a means to get to their shotgun.

 

[Apple Jack]

25% hit rate from a well trained police officer10 rounds means an above average shooter should be lucky to hit twiceCongrats, if 10 round magazines pass, families using handguns will now barely have the resources to defend themselves against only 1 intruder during life threatening home invasions, and that is assuming 2 bullets will always be enough to impede 1 intruder.

A huge majority of the time, zero bullets will be enough to impede multiple intruders. By far the most common use of a gun, when it comes to self-defense, is pointing it at someone and telling him to go away. It usually need not be fired.Normally, I'd make this point in response to some numskull who says that the only purpose of guns is to kill people; but I think it's worth pointing out in this context as well.

Correct, I think this helps draw the line between burglary and home invasion. Burglaries are often 1 person jobs just looking for a quick score without any resistance, home invasions there is intent to do harm if met by resistance.

All you are doing here is attempting to remove data from the sample that does not help you get to where you want to go. And can we get the intruders (do we need to consult wiki or somebody's suspicions of what the media might think it means for a definition?) to announce both their intentions and their numbers when they come into the house? Probably not, considering they surely think the house is empty if they're breaking in.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

25% hit rate from a well trained police officer10 rounds means an above average shooter should be lucky to hit twiceCongrats, if 10 round magazines pass, families using handguns will now barely have the resources to defend themselves against only 1 intruder during life threatening home invasions, and that is assuming 2 bullets will always be enough to impede 1 intruder.

A huge majority of the time, zero bullets will be enough to impede multiple intruders. By far the most common use of a gun, when it comes to self-defense, is pointing it at someone and telling him to go away. It usually need not be fired.Normally, I'd make this point in response to some numskull who says that the only purpose of guns is to kill people; but I think it's worth pointing out in this context as well.

Correct, I think this helps draw the line between burglary and home invasion. Burglaries are often 1 person jobs just looking for a quick score without any resistance, home invasions there is intent to do harm if met by resistance.

All you are doing here is attempting to remove data from the sample that does not help you get to where you want to go. And can we get the intruders (do we need to consult wiki or somebody's suspicions of what the media might think it means for a definition?) to announce both their intentions and their numbers when they come into the house? Probably not, considering they surely think the house is empty if they're breaking in.

Wrong. Their actions dictate the type of crime being committed, states have even gone so far as to declare different degrees of home invasions with much stiffer penalties.

 

[Henry Ford]

25% hit rate from a well trained police officer10 rounds means an above average shooter should be lucky to hit twiceCongrats, if 10 round magazines pass, families using handguns will now barely have the resources to defend themselves against only 1 intruder during life threatening home invasions, and that is assuming 2 bullets will always be enough to impede 1 intruder.

A huge majority of the time, zero bullets will be enough to impede multiple intruders. By far the most common use of a gun, when it comes to self-defense, is pointing it at someone and telling him to go away. It usually need not be fired.Normally, I'd make this point in response to some numskull who says that the only purpose of guns is to kill people; but I think it's worth pointing out in this context as well.

Correct, I think this helps draw the line between burglary and home invasion. Burglaries are often 1 person jobs just looking for a quick score without any resistance, home invasions there is intent to do harm if met by resistance.

All you are doing here is attempting to remove data from the sample that does not help you get to where you want to go. And can we get the intruders (do we need to consult wiki or somebody's suspicions of what the media might think it means for a definition?) to announce both their intentions and their numbers when they come into the house? Probably not, considering they surely think the house is empty if they're breaking in.

Wrong. Their actions dictate the type of crime being committed, states have even gone so far as to declare different degrees of home invasions with much stiffer penalties.

Well, their actions and intentions dictate the type of crime being committed. Stiffer penalties are usually for when they knew there was someone in the house, when they intended a violent act as opposed to a theft, etc.