***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Even if it was challenged in the past, it doesn't mean it can't or won't be again. New decisions are constantly based upon previous decisions and arguments. Heller didn't occur until 2008.

Yeah, this part of tim's argument is probably the worst. Alito replaced O'Connor in 2006. Stuff that was constitutional in 2005 isn't constitutional anymore.

 

[the moops]

CarjackingThis what you're referring to? If by "drove across town" you mean two blocks and if by "left for dead in a abandoned gas station parking lot" you mean let out in the parking lot of a very busy Walgreens, this must be the case you're referring to. Not downplaying a crime involving a gun, but let's not play it up for effect.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one.

It's amazing you have the ability to write this even though you continually refused to acknowledge posts showing that when the magazine capacity law was in effect in the past, a 10 capacity limitation was ineffective in limiting deaths in mass shootings. Just amazing.

If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment.

And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.

best post of this thread

I don't know if it will ever be challenged but I'll take a stab (not a shot - wouldn't want to waste one) at how it might be. I asked in my 1st post in this thread, "where do you draw the line". At what point does a magazine limitation effectively limit deaths and not infringe on a person's right to effectively defend himself. There were very few responses and only one person tried to (unsuccessfully) defend his position. This is how I think it may be attacked.From Heller:

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional

Does a magazine limitation of 30 prevent someone from using their firearm in self defense? I think most would say no. How about a magazine limitation of one? I think most would say yes, it would make it "impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional". What about a limitation of 10? I think Cookiemonster made a very strong case that it does limit one's ability in self defense.

As far as I know, the Court's rulings are generally very narrow in scope. If it wasn't specifically challenged in the past, there would not have likely been a ruling. It's somewhat absurd to think that since it wasn't challenged or overturned in the past, it won't be in the future. By your same reasoning above, a trigger lock mechanism doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment, I guess because you don't think it specifically infringes on our right to bear arms. The Court seems to disagree. The same argument can be made for magazine limitations.

I don't think he did. And when he attempted to do so, I challenged him (or anyone else) to come up with a real life (not hypothetical) story in which someone's ability to defend himself was impaired because he didn't have a magazine that exceeded 10 bullets. Surely between 1994 and 2004, when this ban was in place on a federal level, there should be at least one example. But no one has been able to come up with one. I don't think in this case it's absurd to make a conclusion about the fact that this wasn't challenged in the past, because the NRA vigorously challenges EVERY gun restriction. I have no doubt this was challenged as well, and the SC refused to hear it because the argument had no merit. It still doesn't.

Done.Time to come to the dark side Timmy!

 

[timschochet]

Even if it was challenged in the past, it doesn't mean it can't or won't be again. New decisions are constantly based upon previous decisions and arguments. Heller didn't occur until 2008.

Yeah, this part of tim's argument is probably the worst. Alito replaced O'Connor in 2006. Stuff that was constitutional in 2005 isn't constitutional anymore.

Even beyond the AWB, we have had federal restrictions on firearms throughout the history of this nation. A decision by the Supreme Court to find that magazine limitations violates the 2nd Amendment would radically change over 200 years of judicial thinking on that amendment. I suppose anything's possible, but it seems pretty unlikely.

 

[timschochet]

Done.

Time to come to the dark side Timmy!

Actually, this example, far from contradicting me, proves an earlier point I tried to make as to why law enforcement can't be compared to private citizens seeking home defense. Here you have a policeman who pursues a bank robber and ends up in a deadly duel. Pursuit is his job; it is not the job of a home defender. That's why Mr. Ayoob's argument that private citizens should have access to the exact same weaponry as law enforcement is so incredibly absurd. If law enforcement needs 30 round magazines, then they should have them. But no private citizen should, IMO.

 

[[icon]]

There should be no reason for carrying a gun in public, unless it's for work reasons. Police, security, farmers etcYou still have a right to your firearms, just not in public places.

You should tell that to the thousands of would-be victims of shooting sprees that were stopped by armed civilians. I live in Memphis... I keep a sidearm with me not because I look forward to playing Rambo vigilante. I do it because I want to be able to protect my family in the event something happens. Last week a guy was confronted at gun point at a Kroger not 2 miles from my house (in a very nice neighborhood). He was made to drive across town then was pistol whipped, had his life threatened...robbed... Then left for dead in a abandoned gas station parking lot. These things don't happen all the time but they happen enough that I prefer to have a means to protect myself and my family. The police are referred to as a thin blue line for a reason... They can't always be there to help. Ask most law enforcement officers and they will tell you they support the idea of licensed concealed carry. There is a reason for that.

CarjackingThis what you're referring to? If by "drove across town" you mean two blocks and if by "left for dead in a abandoned gas station parking lot" you mean let out in the parking lot of a very busy Walgreens, this must be the case you're referring to. Not downplaying a crime involving a gun, but let's not play it up for effect.

That is indeed the incident... Haven't followed up beyond the initial reports (which were apparently sensationalized a bit by the local media). Good to hear it wasnt worse. There are several incidents weekly in this city which don't end that well... Since you're in the digging mood you can jump right on that... The point stands. I carry for very good reason and thankfully that won't be taken away.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

There should be no reason for carrying a gun in public, unless it's for work reasons. Police, security, farmers etcYou still have a right to your firearms, just not in public places.

You should tell that to the thousands of would-be victims of shooting sprees that were stopped by armed civilians. I live in Memphis... I keep a sidearm with me not because I look forward to playing Rambo vigilante. I do it because I want to be able to protect my family in the event something happens. Last week a guy was confronted at gun point at a Kroger not 2 miles from my house (in a very nice neighborhood). He was made to drive across town then was pistol whipped, had his life threatened...robbed... Then left for dead in a abandoned gas station parking lot. These things don't happen all the time but they happen enough that I prefer to have a means to protect myself and my family. The police are referred to as a thin blue line for a reason... They can't always be there to help. Ask most law enforcement officers and they will tell you they support the idea of licensed concealed carry. There is a reason for that.

CarjackingThis what you're referring to? If by "drove across town" you mean two blocks and if by "left for dead in a abandoned gas station parking lot" you mean let out in the parking lot of a very busy Walgreens, this must be the case you're referring to. Not downplaying a crime involving a gun, but let's not play it up for effect.

That is indeed the incident... Haven't followed up beyond the initial reports (which were apparently sensationalized a bit by the local media). Good to hear it wasnt worse. There are several incidents weekly in this city which don't end that well... Since you're in the digging mood you can jump right on that... The point stands. I carry for very good reason and thankfully that won't be taken away.

But don't you see a lesson here? Lousy reporting led you to believe that this particular victim was in desperate need of a gun, thereby confirming your conviction that you need to carry one. Once the full story comes out, it turns out that it's probably a good thing this guy didn't have a gun, or the outcome might very well have been a lot worse. Of course, even when you find out that the original story was erroneous, you believe that numerous other incidents justify your beliefs and so you disregard this one that you used as an example in the first place.Yeah, there are some scary people out there that might want to harm you or your family. But there probably aren't very many of them. Most criminals just want your stuff.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Done.

Time to come to the dark side Timmy!

Actually, this example, far from contradicting me, proves an earlier point I tried to make as to why law enforcement can't be compared to private citizens seeking home defense. Here you have a policeman who pursues a bank robber and ends up in a deadly duel. Pursuit is his job; it is not the job of a home defender. That's why Mr. Ayoob's argument that private citizens should have access to the exact same weaponry as law enforcement is so incredibly absurd. If law enforcement needs 30 round magazines, then they should have them. But no private citizen should, IMO.

THREE 12 round magazines, 1 round left in the chamber, 4 rounds left in last magazine, 14 shots landed prior to the three head shots needed to take him down.A 10 round magazine and this man would be DEAD.

CASE CLOSED.

 

[timschochet]

The point stands. I carry for very good reason and thankfully that won't be taken away.

It shouldn't be. JML's argument is flawed. It might work if there were a means for us to transition into a society in which there were no firearms, but there is no way for us to reach that society. There are over 300 million privately held guns in this country. Therefore, you have the right to defend yourself and your family; you can't count on the police to do it. I do believe that public schools should be gun free zones, but other than that, I'm good with you having CCW in most public places. Some of the posters in this thread changed my mind on this issue, specifically Cookiemonster and Five Digit Know Nothing.

 

[tommyboy]

The american public with 300 million guns and say 100 million pissed off people would destroy the federal govt if it came to shooting war. It wouldnt even be close. Theres only a million or two soldiers in this country and i highly doubt theyd be keen on killing their fellow citizens

How do the fellow citizens feel about killing members of the U.S. Armed Forces in this scenario?

Why do we think all of the american public will be on the same side of this fight anyway?

that's why i used 100 million which is 1./3rd of the US population. If it got really bad you might have 150-250 million pissed off people to deal with. I was being conservative.

 

[timschochet]

Done.

Time to come to the dark side Timmy!

Actually, this example, far from contradicting me, proves an earlier point I tried to make as to why law enforcement can't be compared to private citizens seeking home defense. Here you have a policeman who pursues a bank robber and ends up in a deadly duel. Pursuit is his job; it is not the job of a home defender. That's why Mr. Ayoob's argument that private citizens should have access to the exact same weaponry as law enforcement is so incredibly absurd. If law enforcement needs 30 round magazines, then they should have them. But no private citizen should, IMO.

THREE 12 round magazines, 1 round left in the chamber, 4 rounds left in last magazine, 14 shots landed prior to the three head shots needed to take him down.A 10 round magazine and this man would be DEAD.

CASE CLOSED.

The case that law enforcement should have whatever magazines they need? I agree.

 

[[icon]]

There should be no reason for carrying a gun in public, unless it's for work reasons. Police, security, farmers etcYou still have a right to your firearms, just not in public places.

You should tell that to the thousands of would-be victims of shooting sprees that were stopped by armed civilians. I live in Memphis... I keep a sidearm with me not because I look forward to playing Rambo vigilante. I do it because I want to be able to protect my family in the event something happens. Last week a guy was confronted at gun point at a Kroger not 2 miles from my house (in a very nice neighborhood). He was made to drive across town then was pistol whipped, had his life threatened...robbed... Then left for dead in a abandoned gas station parking lot. These things don't happen all the time but they happen enough that I prefer to have a means to protect myself and my family. The police are referred to as a thin blue line for a reason... They can't always be there to help. Ask most law enforcement officers and they will tell you they support the idea of licensed concealed carry. There is a reason for that.

CarjackingThis what you're referring to? If by "drove across town" you mean two blocks and if by "left for dead in a abandoned gas station parking lot" you mean let out in the parking lot of a very busy Walgreens, this must be the case you're referring to. Not downplaying a crime involving a gun, but let's not play it up for effect.

That is indeed the incident... Haven't followed up beyond the initial reports (which were apparently sensationalized a bit by the local media). Good to hear it wasnt worse. There are several incidents weekly in this city which don't end that well... Since you're in the digging mood you can jump right on that... The point stands. I carry for very good reason and thankfully that won't be taken away.

But don't you see a lesson here? Lousy reporting led you to believe that this particular victim was in desperate need of a gun, thereby confirming your conviction that you need to carry one. Once the full story comes out, it turns out that it's probably a good thing this guy didn't have a gun, or the outcome might very well have been a lot worse. Of course, even when you find out that the original story was erroneous, you believe that numerous other incidents justify your beliefs and so you disregard this one that you used as an example in the first place.Yeah, there are some scary people out there that might want to harm you or your family. But there probably aren't very many of them. Most criminals just want your stuff.

I'm not even going to get into this with you. You have your beleifs and I have mine. Thankfully the law sides with mine. Carry on.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

another

 

[[icon]]

The point stands. I carry for very good reason and thankfully that won't be taken away.

It shouldn't be. JML's argument is flawed. It might work if there were a means for us to transition into a society in which there were no firearms, but there is no way for us to reach that society. There are over 300 million privately held guns in this country. Therefore, you have the right to defend yourself and your family; you can't count on the police to do it. I do believe that public schools should be gun free zones, but other than that, I'm good with you having CCW in most public places. Some of the posters in this thread changed my mind on this issue, specifically Cookiemonster and Five Digit Know Nothing.

Glad to see you've come into this with an open mind. I've actually been swayed to concede some aspects (tighter background checks and elements to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people). I still think theyre somewhat pointless because bad men will find a gun easily.. No matter what laws are in place.

 

[timschochet]

another

Law enforcement. Do you have a private citizen home invasion example? Everything else is irrelevant.

 

[tommyboy]

Done.

Time to come to the dark side Timmy!

Actually, this example, far from contradicting me, proves an earlier point I tried to make as to why law enforcement can't be compared to private citizens seeking home defense. Here you have a policeman who pursues a bank robber and ends up in a deadly duel. Pursuit is his job; it is not the job of a home defender. That's why Mr. Ayoob's argument that private citizens should have access to the exact same weaponry as law enforcement is so incredibly absurd. If law enforcement needs 30 round magazines, then they should have them. But no private citizen should, IMO.

why shouldn't "any" private citizen have a 30 round mag?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Done.

Time to come to the dark side Timmy!

Actually, this example, far from contradicting me, proves an earlier point I tried to make as to why law enforcement can't be compared to private citizens seeking home defense. Here you have a policeman who pursues a bank robber and ends up in a deadly duel. Pursuit is his job; it is not the job of a home defender. That's why Mr. Ayoob's argument that private citizens should have access to the exact same weaponry as law enforcement is so incredibly absurd. If law enforcement needs 30 round magazines, then they should have them. But no private citizen should, IMO.

THREE 12 round magazines, 1 round left in the chamber, 4 rounds left in last magazine, 14 shots landed prior to the three head shots needed to take him down.A 10 round magazine and this man would be DEAD.

CASE CLOSED.

The case that law enforcement should have whatever magazines they need? I agree.

Why?Are the criminals police face superhuman compared to criminals found in home invasions. The criminal wasn't armed with a weapon any more powerful found in home invasions.

There's no way in hell you are getting off that easy.

 

[freakinback]

There should be no reason for carrying a gun in public, unless it's for work reasons. Police, security, farmers etcYou still have a right to your firearms, just not in public places.

You should tell that to the thousands of would-be victims of shooting sprees that were stopped by armed civilians. I live in Memphis... I keep a sidearm with me not because I look forward to playing Rambo vigilante. I do it because I want to be able to protect my family in the event something happens. Last week a guy was confronted at gun point at a Kroger not 2 miles from my house (in a very nice neighborhood). He was made to drive across town then was pistol whipped, had his life threatened...robbed... Then left for dead in a abandoned gas station parking lot. These things don't happen all the time but they happen enough that I prefer to have a means to protect myself and my family. The police are referred to as a thin blue line for a reason... They can't always be there to help. Ask most law enforcement officers and they will tell you they support the idea of licensed concealed carry. There is a reason for that.

You can't expect the police to stop a crime or protect you from an active crime.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Done.

Time to come to the dark side Timmy!

Actually, this example, far from contradicting me, proves an earlier point I tried to make as to why law enforcement can't be compared to private citizens seeking home defense. Here you have a policeman who pursues a bank robber and ends up in a deadly duel. Pursuit is his job; it is not the job of a home defender. That's why Mr. Ayoob's argument that private citizens should have access to the exact same weaponry as law enforcement is so incredibly absurd. If law enforcement needs 30 round magazines, then they should have them. But no private citizen should, IMO.

THREE 12 round magazines, 1 round left in the chamber, 4 rounds left in last magazine, 14 shots landed prior to the three head shots needed to take him down.A 10 round magazine and this man would be DEAD.

CASE CLOSED.

The case that law enforcement should have whatever magazines they need? I agree.

Why?Are the criminals police face superhuman compared to criminals found in home invasions. The criminal wasn't armed with a weapon any more powerful found in home invasions.

There's no way in hell you are getting off that easy.

Nukes for everyone!

 

[freakinback]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/14/3876498/wiki-weapon-defense-distributed-3d-print-high-capacity-magazine

 

[tommyGunZ]

There should be no reason for carrying a gun in public, unless it's for work reasons. Police, security, farmers etcYou still have a right to your firearms, just not in public places.

You should tell that to the thousands of would-be victims of shooting sprees that were stopped by armed civilians. I live in Memphis... I keep a sidearm with me not because I look forward to playing Rambo vigilante. I do it because I want to be able to protect my family in the event something happens. Last week a guy was confronted at gun point at a Kroger not 2 miles from my house (in a very nice neighborhood). He was made to drive across town then was pistol whipped, had his life threatened...robbed... Then left for dead in a abandoned gas station parking lot. These things don't happen all the time but they happen enough that I prefer to have a means to protect myself and my family. The police are referred to as a thin blue line for a reason... They can't always be there to help. Ask most law enforcement officers and they will tell you they support the idea of licensed concealed carry. There is a reason for that.

And yet carrying that firearm necessarily puts your family in more danger than if you weren't carrying. I'm always surprised when I read otherwise intelligent posters using anecdotal tales of "last week a guy a few blocks away" or "ask most law enforcement officers" instead of looking at the actual data. Shine on you crazy diamond.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

skip to the conclusion if you want to be educated on what is required to incapacitate.http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdfMy first example was an officer expending 33 bullets, hitting for 17 of them, the last 3 were head shots against 1 criminal. Just goes to show having an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is acceptable for home defense and had this criminal invaded a home intent on doing harm to the inhabitants a 10 round firearm would not have been enough to stop him without a kill shot.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

And yet carrying that firearm necessarily puts your family in more danger than if you weren't carrying.

This myth has already been disproven many times over in this thread.

 

[tommyGunZ]

And yet carrying that firearm necessarily puts your family in more danger than if you weren't carrying.

This myth has already been disproven many times over in this thread.

No it hasn't.

 

[Jobber]

And yet carrying that firearm necessarily puts your family in more danger than if you weren't carrying.

This myth has already been disproven many times over in this thread.

No it hasn't.

You're putting this claim out there, so... link please.

 

[tommyGunZ]

And yet carrying that firearm necessarily puts your family in more danger than if you weren't carrying.

This myth has already been disproven many times over in this thread.

No it hasn't.

You're putting this claim out there, so... link please.

Really? This isn't controversial. Guns in the home = greater risk of homicide & suicide

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

 

[kface]

Just browsing through this thread it is amazing at how many people live their lives in fear. I suspect of first world countries the US has a much larger portion of paranoid and fearful people.

 

[Henry Ford]

The american public with 300 million guns and say 100 million pissed off people would destroy the federal govt if it came to shooting war. It wouldnt even be close. Theres only a million or two soldiers in this country and i highly doubt theyd be keen on killing their fellow citizens

How do the fellow citizens feel about killing members of the U.S. Armed Forces in this scenario?

Why do we think all of the american public will be on the same side of this fight anyway?

that's why i used 100 million which is 1./3rd of the US population. If it got really bad you might have 150-250 million pissed off people to deal with. I was being conservative.

100 million isn't conservative. You know that a lot of the 300 million people in this country aren't fit for duty, right? I think 1/4 of the population or so are children. Will they be allowed in your army, Oh Great Warlord? You're never getting to 250 million without kids.

 

[[icon]]

Life ban! Yay! If you can't beat them, ban them....I've got plenty of alias's though. No big deal.

lolerskatesGroup: Banned

lol

Not gonna lie... Sorta happy about this.

 

[tommyboy]

The american public with 300 million guns and say 100 million pissed off people would destroy the federal govt if it came to shooting war. It wouldnt even be close. Theres only a million or two soldiers in this country and i highly doubt theyd be keen on killing their fellow citizens

How do the fellow citizens feel about killing members of the U.S. Armed Forces in this scenario?

Why do we think all of the american public will be on the same side of this fight anyway?

that's why i used 100 million which is 1./3rd of the US population. If it got really bad you might have 150-250 million pissed off people to deal with. I was being conservative.

100 million isn't conservative. You know that a lot of the 300 million people in this country aren't fit for duty, right? I think 1/4 of the population or so are children. Will they be allowed in your army, Oh Great Warlord? You're never getting to 250 million without kids.

Then use 50 million, doesnt matter

 

[5 digit know nothing]

And yet carrying that firearm necessarily puts your family in more danger than if you weren't carrying.

This myth has already been disproven many times over in this thread.

No it hasn't.

You're putting this claim out there, so... link please.

Really? This isn't controversial. Guns in the home = greater risk of homicide & suicide

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Do you even read this crap you post?

Many of the studies conducted to date have been based on small samples and were limited to specific population groups such as adolescents or older adults (15–19). Most of the studies have also been limited to a few counties, geographic areas, or states.

We know of only two national case-control studies that have examined the relation between access to a firearm and a violent death (23, 24). One study focused on the perpetration of homicide as opposed to victimization and found a relatively weak association (adjusted odds ratio = 1.4) between gun ownership and homicide perpetration (23). The other study focused on victimization and found a strong association for suicide (adjusted odds ratio = 3.4) but a weak association for homicide (adjusted odds ratio = 1.4) (24). In both studies, cases and controls were drawn from different data sources, and neither study was able to control for many of the potential confounders of homicide or suicide.

 

[[icon]]

And yet carrying that firearm necessarily puts your family in more danger than if you weren't carrying.

This myth has already been disproven many times over in this thread.

No it hasn't.

You're putting this claim out there, so... link please.

Really? This isn't controversial. Guns in the home = greater risk of homicide & suicide

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Lame, bogus stat. "They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers."

So yeah...if you're worried your wife is going to go springer on your ### and shoot you, fine. Only 3.6pct of the victims of in house gun deaths were at the hands of strangers.

Given i am jn a very stable household, Ill take those odds in exchange for being able to defend my family against an armed intruder.

How bunk is that survey?

The same study determined being a Renter increased your odds of being murdered by 4.4x... Greater than the impact of having a gun In the home.

Ban apartments!!!

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Here's a city that study must have missed...http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

 

[kface]

Here's a city that study must have missed...http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

I have to ask - how well do you think that idea would work in NYC? That town has a population of 4000...it shouldn't have any murders and very little crime to begin with.

 

[boots11234]

Here's a city that study must have missed...http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

 

[Apple Jack]

The american public with 300 million guns and say 100 million pissed off people would destroy the federal govt if it came to shooting war. It wouldnt even be close. Theres only a million or two soldiers in this country and i highly doubt theyd be keen on killing their fellow citizens

How do the fellow citizens feel about killing members of the U.S. Armed Forces in this scenario?

Why do we think all of the american public will be on the same side of this fight anyway?

that's why i used 100 million which is 1./3rd of the US population. If it got really bad you might have 150-250 million pissed off people to deal with. I was being conservative.

100 million isn't conservative. You know that a lot of the 300 million people in this country aren't fit for duty, right? I think 1/4 of the population or so are children. Will they be allowed in your army, Oh Great Warlord? You're never getting to 250 million without kids.

Then use 50 million, doesnt matter

You understand that it'll be more like six of you, right? With three of the six likely unable to form complete sentences.

 

[[icon]]

Fun facts from UDOJ (criminal victimization in the united states : 2006)In home invasions involving a firearm used in self defense, the firearm was more than twice as likely to have a positive outcome than a negative one (with the largest effect being nil). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus06.pdf

 

[boots11234]

Here's a city that study must have missed...http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

I have to ask - how well do you think that idea would work in NYC? That town has a population of 4000...it shouldn't have any murders and very little crime to begin with.

Tis type of thinking is exactly what the Dems tried here in MN when CC was being discussed. People will shoot each other! There will be death in the streets! Well, it never happened and it wouldn't happen in NY either.

 

[Apple Jack]

Is there a fun gun message board you guys are on with a page dedicated to how you will launch your attack on the United States military? I think I could learn things for that and I would also be willing to share it with my fellow patriots.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Here's a city that study must have missed...

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000

national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000

in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

I have to ask - how well do you think that idea would work in NYC? That town has a population of 4000...it shouldn't have any murders and very little crime to begin with.

You missed the part of my post that stated it had a higher crime rate than the national average prior to enactment of the law.How would it work in NYC? I lived in NYC, the fact that most people don't drive and public transportation is so easily accessible lends to the younger population of NYC to drink excessively for that reason alone it probably would not work. But there are so many factors that go into real discussions about crime that when people throw out stats like having a gun in the home makes the members of that household 3.8 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide when surveyed regions heavily populated with gangs when gun ownership in these regions had gang members out number non-gang members for owning a firearm 5:1 utter and complete rubbish.

From my quote above to TGunz:

In both studies, cases and controls were drawn from different data sources, and neither study was able to control for many of the potential confounders of homicide or suicide.

This is where most of these studies miss the mark. They come up with their conclusion first and then try to shape the data to support it instead of looking at all variables that contribute to violence/crime/homicide like having a mentally ill person in the household, having a member of the household that was previously incarcerated, illicit drug use, domestic violence previously reported to the police in the household. All factors which way heavily when you start discussing causes of violence/crime/homicide.

 

[Apple Jack]

Here's a city that study must have missed...

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000

national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000

in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

I have to ask - how well do you think that idea would work in NYC? That town has a population of 4000...it shouldn't have any murders and very little crime to begin with.

You missed the part of my post that stated it had a higher crime rate than the national average prior to enactment of the law.How would it work in NYC? I lived in NYC, the fact that most people don't drive and public transportation is so easily accessible lends to the younger population of NYC to drink excessively for that reason alone it probably would not work. But there are so many factors that go into real discussions about crime that when people throw out stats like having a gun in the home makes the members of that household 3.8 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide when surveyed regions heavily populated with gangs when gun ownership in these regions had gang members out number non-gang members for owning a firearm 5:1 utter and complete rubbish.

Huh?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Here's a city that study must have missed...

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000

national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000

in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

I have to ask - how well do you think that idea would work in NYC? That town has a population of 4000...it shouldn't have any murders and very little crime to begin with.

You missed the part of my post that stated it had a higher crime rate than the national average prior to enactment of the law.How would it work in NYC? I lived in NYC, the fact that most people don't drive and public transportation is so easily accessible lends to the younger population of NYC to drink excessively for that reason alone it probably would not work. But there are so many factors that go into real discussions about crime that when people throw out stats like having a gun in the home makes the members of that household 3.8 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide when surveyed regions heavily populated with gangs when gun ownership in these regions had gang members out number non-gang members for owning a firearm 5:1 utter and complete rubbish.

Huh?

what part about having raging alcoholics in close proximity to firearms don't you understand?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

from the article I linked above:

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: “When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.” Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/#TcC4AOx1jLBw0XsQ.99

It's 27 miles north of Atlanta.

 

[Apple Jack]

Here's a city that study must have missed...

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000

national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000

in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

I have to ask - how well do you think that idea would work in NYC? That town has a population of 4000...it shouldn't have any murders and very little crime to begin with.

You missed the part of my post that stated it had a higher crime rate than the national average prior to enactment of the law.How would it work in NYC? I lived in NYC, the fact that most people don't drive and public transportation is so easily accessible lends to the younger population of NYC to drink excessively for that reason alone it probably would not work. But there are so many factors that go into real discussions about crime that when people throw out stats like having a gun in the home makes the members of that household 3.8 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide when surveyed regions heavily populated with gangs when gun ownership in these regions had gang members out number non-gang members for owning a firearm 5:1 utter and complete rubbish.

Huh?

what part about having raging alcoholics in close proximity to firearms don't you understand?

I'm with you there, but your assertion that NYers are raging alcoholics in such higher numbers than anywhere else that it should disqualify them from the discussion is comical.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom?xrs=synd_twitter

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Here's a city that study must have missed...

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000

national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000

in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

I have to ask - how well do you think that idea would work in NYC? That town has a population of 4000...it shouldn't have any murders and very little crime to begin with.

You missed the part of my post that stated it had a higher crime rate than the national average prior to enactment of the law.How would it work in NYC? I lived in NYC, the fact that most people don't drive and public transportation is so easily accessible lends to the younger population of NYC to drink excessively for that reason alone it probably would not work. But there are so many factors that go into real discussions about crime that when people throw out stats like having a gun in the home makes the members of that household 3.8 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide when surveyed regions heavily populated with gangs when gun ownership in these regions had gang members out number non-gang members for owning a firearm 5:1 utter and complete rubbish.

Huh?

what part about having raging alcoholics in close proximity to firearms don't you understand?

I'm with you there, but your assertion that NYers are raging alcoholics in such higher numbers than anywhere else as to disqualify NYC is comical.

You understand what the question being asked was? He suggested arming every household in NYC which was a tangent to the discussion at hand and I told him my honest answer. There are so many drunken douchebags in NYC that I would not trust to own a gun for when they come home after a long day and night of boozing.

 

[Apple Jack]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom?xrs=synd_twitter

Wow

 

[Apple Jack]

Here's a city that study must have missed...

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000

national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000

in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

I have to ask - how well do you think that idea would work in NYC? That town has a population of 4000...it shouldn't have any murders and very little crime to begin with.

You missed the part of my post that stated it had a higher crime rate than the national average prior to enactment of the law.How would it work in NYC? I lived in NYC, the fact that most people don't drive and public transportation is so easily accessible lends to the younger population of NYC to drink excessively for that reason alone it probably would not work. But there are so many factors that go into real discussions about crime that when people throw out stats like having a gun in the home makes the members of that household 3.8 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide when surveyed regions heavily populated with gangs when gun ownership in these regions had gang members out number non-gang members for owning a firearm 5:1 utter and complete rubbish.

Huh?

what part about having raging alcoholics in close proximity to firearms don't you understand?

I'm with you there, but your assertion that NYers are raging alcoholics in such higher numbers than anywhere else as to disqualify NYC is comical.

You understand what the question being asked was? He suggested arming every household in NYC which was a tangent to the discussion at hand and I told him my honest answer. There are so many drunken douchebags in NYC that I would not trust to own a gun for when they come home after a long day and night of boozing.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Here's a city that study must have missed...http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

I have to ask - how well do you think that idea would work in NYC? That town has a population of 4000...it shouldn't have any murders and very little crime to begin with.

You missed the part of my post that stated it had a higher crime rate than the national average prior to enactment of the law.

So with a population of 4,000, the crime rate of 4,000 per 100,000 means they had 160 crimes? Funny things happen when you use really small numbers to try to draw conclusions which is why most people don't do it.

What's worse is when people pull numbers out of their ### like 4,000.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom?xrs=synd_twitter

Wow

Be sure to watch both parts.