Gun Owners.. Ball is in your court

[ecduzitgood]

Tomahawks should be outlawed...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/son-said-...220209906.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Checkout the related stories at the bottom of the article.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

If criminals don't care about laws why do people argue the death penalty is a deterrent?

If 50+% of gun deaths are non-assisted suicides, and there's no specific law prohibiting it, how are these people criminals?

And finally, what's a more effective weapon to inflict mass casualties, a knife or a gun?

It's moot now anyway, Jim's comment about North Dakota just put him back in first place


On their own no, but look at this most recent shooting and it's looking quite likely that the family attitude toward guns was a factor.

it's pretty simple spence, the death penalty is a punishment, murder is still a criminal act, as well as owning an illegal weapon. LOGICAL

I thought suicide was against the law, in any case if they use an illegal gun it is criminal. again logical

knife or gun? serious? common sense

Take the money away from all that free stuff given to illegal aliens and pay for armed guards in our schools to protect our innocent children , how is that for common sense?

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Why does this Oregon mass shooting put the ball in the gun owners court?



It seems to me, however, that the court that gun control is being played on is not the gun owners court, nor any real agreement on true responsibility, but the court of politics. Who can milk the issue for votes, for power.

Yep

[Rockport24]

I know the antis think the armed guard is nuts, but the thing is it works!

[tysdad115]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

I know the antis think the armed guard is nuts, but the thing is it works!

It better than works..Purdue University broke this down quite a bit and the results were overwhelmingly in favor. http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/relea...oter-tide.html

[Rockport24]

Probably why our president has a bunch of armed men around him at all times as well!

[Nebe]

And another shooting today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Our high school has an armed cop on duty every day since the mass killings in Connecticut...it is precautionary....I do not understand Y there would b one un armed guard at a college of more then 3000 students....is he/she going to throw books or pencils at intruders?

Also politics R jumping on Ben Carson for his statement about fighting back, dems R trying to destroy him....I believe the same as he does to fight back....in most schools students R taught to cower to a corner, this is okay if kids R real young, but college kids R adults they should have a plan to attack while trying to run out....yes one or two may B shot while running but Y wait to B systematically shot.

[ecduzitgood]

If they take all guns away what method will the lunatic rampage killers use? Check out the pain index in the "lost all hope link" I provided above.
Imagine if they used gasoline and a match the amount of suffering that would be caused. If it was to happen to me I would prefer bullets or explosives.
I have always said I would rather be at ground zero if a nuke was to go off anywhere near me. I personally prefer not to suffer and go quick. How about you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20..._manufacturers

So what will the rampage killers use once the guns are gone? Imagine all the gun violence victims including gang bangers having the ability to sue the gun manufacturers for their illegal actions. The gun manufacturers will go out of business in this country. The only people who will be protected by GUNS will be tje ones who make the gun laws...the Democrats want everyone to be at risk, except for them and the people who can afford armed protection or have the TAXPAYERS pay for their armed gaurds.

I imagine they could use a fire starter that doesn't have much of an odor to start a fire causing much more pain for the victims and put the first responders at more risk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

it's pretty simple spence, the death penalty is a punishment, murder is still a criminal act, as well as owning an illegal weapon. LOGICAL

I thought suicide was against the law, in any case if they use an illegal gun it is criminal. again logical

knife or gun? serious? common sense

Take the money away from all that free stuff given to illegal aliens and pay for armed guards in our schools to protect our innocent children , how is that for common sense?

The initial remark was criminals don't care about laws, but if that's the case they must not care about punishments either.

Suicide by illegal weapon? Don't know if there's a stat on that but I'd be surprised if it's that common.

What we do know is that firearm deaths with legally procured guns in either non-criminal or non-planned cases are the vast majority. Contrary to detbuch's point made above (didn't have time to respond) firearm deaths now exceed car fatalities.

The Government studies automotive fatalities because it's considered a significant public health issue. Why shouldn't guns be treated the same?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

I know the antis think the armed guard is nuts, but the thing is it works!

I don't think many people are against the armed guard, the question is how to pay for it. What is widely opposed though is the arming of teachers and otherwise non-professionals.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think many people are against the armed guard, the question is how to pay for it. What is widely opposed though is the arming of teachers and otherwise non-professionals.

Pay for it from unrestricted endowments Spence.....if my city can afford a full time cop during school hrs. so can a college....ask Billy Bulger...he gets over a million bucks a year for retirement....lol...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Pay for it from unrestricted endowments Spence.....if my city can afford a full time cop during school hrs. so can a college....ask Billy Bulger...he gets over a million bucks a year for retirement....lol...

Much easier to do with an elementary school that has limited ingress. A university with dozens upon dozens of buildings would cost a fortune to properly secure with armed guards.

[tysdad115]

Then do away totally with gun free zones.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by tysdad115

Then do away totally with gun free zones.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many mass shootings happen in a gun free zone? I mean they are like crazy magnets.

[tysdad115]

Yes they are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by tysdad115

Yes they are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

15%

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=spence;1083819 (didn't have time to respond) [/QUOTE]

Oh, that must be why you didn't answer posts #3and #8 on the
80s policy thread?

[tysdad115]

Originally Posted by spence

15%

And so many occur at places where people are allowed to exercise their constitutional right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

And another shooting today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were there any Stabbings today? How about anybody beaten to death?

But it's a shooting and everybody loses their #^&#^&#^&#^&ing mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Were there any Stabbings today? How about anybody beaten to death?

But it's a shooting and everybody loses their #^&#^&#^&#^&ing mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup....and over in Turkey there were 2 suicide bombers who must not have been able to procure a gun....hmm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Contrary to detbuch's point made above (didn't have time to respond) firearm deaths now exceed car fatalities.

Latest figures I could find comparing the two show that car fatalities still outnumber gun fatalities but the gap is closing and it is predicted that gun caused deaths would become larger this year. Maybe they have. In any case the numbers are close. But the raw numbers are misleading depending on your views on suicide and accidents.

The number of suicides using guns accounts for over 60% of gun related deaths. I don't know if there is even a recorded statistic on suicide by cars. I suspect it would account for a miniscule percent of auto deaths. Since most Americans now favor the right to die by assisted suicide, why would we be horrified if the doctor used a gun rather than chemicals? And why should we interfere with those adults who choose to use a gun to kill themselves? The greatest number of suicide with gun is by white males over the age of fifty something (54?). If we removed just those from the equation, death by car would be much higher than by gun. Excluding minors, do you believe that government should be able to outlaw or regulate suicide? Do you think the Federal Government, specifically, should even have a say in suicide? And, hey, if guns were not available for suicide, I imagine that suicide by car rates would go up.

Accidental death by car is obviously vastly higher than by gun. The same is true of non-lethal injuries which occur in far greater numbers by car than by gun. I assume that gun manufacturers and auto makers try to make their products safe. But the government seems to be suing various auto companies and forcing recalls for faulty or unsafe parts of cars. Not to mention automotive exhaust pollution causing various types of death or disease not added to death and injury statistics. So far, there doesn't seem to have been a significant amount of damage to the environment caused by the use of firearms. Cars are far more prone to be used in accidents than guns are.

Using an automobile to defend yourself relies on your ability to get to and start your car fast enough to evade an attacker. Guns may be more reliable as a method of self defense than cars. The number of cases of guns used for defense varies according to different studies. Here is an entry from Wikipedia:

Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64–65[2][3] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65[6] The basis for the studies, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), vary in their methods, time-frames covered, and questions asked.[7] DGU questions were asked of all the NSDS sample.[3] Due to screening questions in the NCVS survey, only a minority of the NCVS sample were asked a DGU question.[8] Besides the NSDS and NCVS surveys, ten national and three state surveys summarized by Kleck and Gertz gave 764 thousand to 3.6 million DGU per year.[3] Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year


The Government studies automotive fatalities because it's considered a significant public health issue. Why shouldn't guns be treated the same?

Wouldn't automobiles create a public safety issue rather than a public health issue. Placing guns under the rubric of public health is, to me, one of those stretches the Federal Government uses to involve itself in as many aspects of our lives that it can. Just about anything can effect health if the meaning of that word is expanded far enough. It is hard for me to get my brain around death, itself, being a health issue. If you're dead, you are not sick or unhealthy. You just aren't. Cancer, heart disease, illness of all sorts will impact your health. And cancer can kill you, but it is not used by humans to kill you. Guns and autos are not pathogens or malfunctions of the body. But they can be used by humans to kill or maim you. Diseases are, to me, a health issue. Guns and automobiles are involved in safety or crime issues.

In either case, public health or public safety, those should, constitutionally be State and local concerns.

I can see a path for the Federal Government to regulate automobiles since they cross state lines every day. That doesn't mean that the Federal Government should necessarily overburden itself by taking all the paths open to it. Even if the central government can squeeze itself into various regulations of the people, it would be best for it to leave most up to the federated states. But the Federal Government, on the other hand, is constitutionally restricted in its regulation of guns. And if the Second Amendment is to be protected. The government's encroachment upon it must be restricted.

I understand that the Constitution is an ancient piece of crap in the progressive perspective. But for others, it is not. I understand that from the progressive point of view the Federal Government should be the authority in all things. That the States, at best, are localized tools for the administration of Federal fiat. That, left to the States, nothing, including public health or public safety, would be looked after in a beneficial way for the people. That only the Federal government should have the final, if not the sole, responsibility and say in all matters of governance.

But for others, that is not so.

And that is the real political battle that is occurring in our time. It is not about public health or public safety. But who is in charge of those various issues.

[Slipknot]

If our government was so concerned about our health, then it would eliminate the corruption of the FDA with all those corporations getting their way like Monsanto to begin with.
Get rid of lobbyists

[detbuch]

To put it simply, from a constitutional perspective, since the primary purpose of the second amendment is to give the citizens a means to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, especially from the central government, then giving that government authority to restrict and regulate private gun ownership is a version of letting the fox in the henhouse.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Were there any Stabbings today? How about anybody beaten to death?

But it's a shooting and everybody loses their #^&#^&#^&#^&ing mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unless the shootings reflect black-on-black violence in Chicago or Baltimore, in which case the democrats won't say a word, because there's no political upside.

[tysdad115]

Originally Posted by detbuch

To put it simply, from a constitutional perspective, since the primary purpose of the second amendment is to give the citizens a means to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, especially from the central government, then giving that government authority to restrict and regulate private gun ownership is a version of letting the fox in the henhouse.

This X2 , and most shocking is the people who openly invite and encourage more govt control into all of our lives.

[ecduzitgood]

They will be after the big sodas soon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

If our government was so concerned about our health, then it would eliminate the corruption of the FDA with all those corporations getting their way like Monsanto to begin with.
Get rid of lobbyists

You've hit upon one of the many problems with Federal regulatory agencies. When regulation rests in one central agency, any corruption of that agency affects the entire country. Thus it makes it easier for lobbyists, for instance, to impose their will on the entire country by corrupting the central agency's regulatory officials.

Regulation by the various States for their own territory would be more tailored to the needs and wants of those States and their citizens. And would be more responsive and beholden to the desires of their citizens. If the citizens of various States were informed about Monsanto practices, and were against them, their individual regulatory agencies could require changes at Monsanto if the corporation desired to have products connected to it sold there. Monsanto lobbyists would have to corrupt 50 agencies not just one.

Not to mention that delegation of Congress's legislative power to unelected agencies is, if the Constitution were to mean what it says, is unconstitutional.

But, then, the Commerce and Welfare clauses have been so corrupted that none of that any longer applies. Progressive interpretation has nullified the original meaning of constitutional text, including separation of powers, so that the central government can do whatever it wants, and if that is questioned, whatever five progressively oriented SCOTUS judges agree to.

Even the path I mentioned above for the Federal government to regulate automobiles because they cross State lines every day would not give it that power in the Constitution as written. The original text in "Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power . . .

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

does not give regulatory power over specific businesses or their prices, but actually gives it the power to prevent States from putting tariffs or restrictions on products simply because they originate from other States. The power is not to regulate ITS commerce WITH the States, but to make commerce free and "regular" AMONG the several States. This was one of the major reasons for a new Constitution. The restriction and tariffs existing between the States at the time was destroying the cohesiveness of the fledgling nation and making it weaker and subject to foreign intervention against its existence. But it does not give the central government power over regulation of specific businesses.

That was made more clear in the debates as recorded in Federalist Papers. Even the construction of that clause states that Federal regulation was WITH itself and foreign nations and WITH itself and the Indian tribes, but AMONG (not with) the various States. Under no reasonable interpretation can it be conceived that by that regulation the U.S. government could regulate the businesses of foreign nations or the Indian tribes. It could tax imports or exports from or to other nations and make agreements on trade with sovereign nations, but could not impose its will on the commerce inside of those nations or with commerce between them and other nations.

The construction of the Commerce clause makes it clear that the Federal Government can regulate (including tariffs and restrictions) commerce between itself and other sovereign nations. But it is not given the power to unilaterally regulate commerce within those nations (ergo, by implication, within the individual sovereign States of the Union), nor between those sovereignties with the exception that it can regulate commercial restrictions that the individual States impose against each other.

But, by disregard for their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, our Progressive politicians have trashed it and given themselves unintended power to impose all manner of regulations on us at will. And it has created the unconstitutional regulatory agencies (New Offices) to impose that will on us contrary to one of the many reasons for casting off the tyranny of the King as stated in the Declaration of Independence:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

[Slipknot]

that is SOOOOO depressing

it is going to take many YEARS to fix the mess we are in from the last 7 years