Gun Control, but not Abortion Control?

[SgtSpiderMan]

besides the fact that they already are and owning a car or truck isn't a right that shall not be infringed.

a privilege and a right are different

civilians can't own any automatic firearms made after 1986 period. only the military and some police depts have access to those.

If they are different why did you bring it up?

 

[bernett69]

If they are different why did you bring it up?

because people compare AR15s and M16s all the time and they are different too.

just because they look alike doesn't make them the same. one is regulated and the other is semi-auto sporting rifle no different then the good old mini14 ranch rifle

 

[BotanyBoy]

Bullshit. There are 30 round clips that are easily obtained. Try again liar.

Everything he said was entirely accurate...no such thing as 100 round clips.

http://www.allnineyards.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/10-round-5.56-clip.jpg

^^ 10 round clips

 

[bernett69]

Everything he said was entirely accurate...no such thing as 100 round clips.

http://www.allnineyards.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/10-round-5.56-clip.jpg

^^ 10 round clips

thank you for the graphic support my friend.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Everything he said was entirely accurate...no such thing as 100 round clips.

http://www.allnineyards.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/10-round-5.56-clip.jpg

^^ 10 round clips

Funny. Still bullshit since you don't load those into your weapon, you use those to load your clip. Everything you say gives me more reason to doubt you're a veteran and not a lying piece of shit.

 

[about_average]

Sorry. There's no law which requires a private individual from making sure they aren't selling to a convicted felon.

LMAO
Good job moving the goal posts when you realize you're wrong.

Here's your original post

I don't know about all states, but I'm pretty sure in Georgia if an individual sells a gun to another who is not legally allowed to own a gun, there are rather stiff penalties.

I haven't checked each individual state but I would wager heavily that no such law exists.

I'll let you figure it out on your own.

 

[UrsulaX]

Sorry, this is long ...

I don't think it's subjective she was about to become a victim.

I wasn’t referring to the Loganville woman. I was responding to your comment about self-defense laws, in which the person claiming self-defense has to demonstrate that he/she was threatened and responded with reasonable force (at least in Minnesota). You claimed one did have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner when confronted with a life threatening situation. I was arguing that it’s a little more nuanced than that, a point I thought was captured in the quote I included. A perceived threat may not always be an intended threat (e.g., in the Trayvon Martin case, George Zimmerman claimed he acted in self-defense, though Trayvon Martin probably had a very different impression). In that respect, victimization is subjective.

And that's exactly what she did. Center mass, at least as best as she could under the circumstances.

Again, I had moved on from the Loganville case. Just to reiterate: I did not find fault with Mrs. Herman’s actions; I had questions about what happened and contemplated less risky alternatives. Apparently, my sources were lacking and my suggestions poorly informed, because I was unsure of the layout of the house, the proximity of her neighbors (the house seems isolated in photos and videos, but her neighbors were apparently involved), and Mr. Slater’s actions after breaking in (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/, http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-face-neck-cornering-mother-kids-attic.html, http://loganville.patch.com/articles/loganville-woman-shoots-burglar-several-times, http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/cops-suspect-shot-by-loganville-mom-had-cased-anot/nTpkR/, http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georgia-home-invasion-911-call-shes-shooting-18165611, http://www.ajc.com/videos/news/911-call-excerpts-from-loganville-house/vmxcR/). All speculation aside, I can’t say what could have happened in the absence of a gun, because she had one. Neither can anyone else.

Wait, you said people should retreat. Standing in the door brandishing a gun isn't retreating.
How would he have no idea she was hiding? How many people, when the leave the house, lock the bathroom door, then lock the bedroom door?

From what you’ve indicated, he probably sensed she was there after entering the house and went looking for her. He had been in jail for simple battery, so maybe he was not one to shy away from confrontation. At this point, I don’t think I’m informed enough to disagree.

The duty to retreat provision is from the quote explaining the self-defense law, not me. I was wondering if she could have averted the entire break-in by making her presence known before he entered unlawfully and committed any crime. Brandishing a gun with no intent to fire it is not shooting someone in self-defense. And using the gun as a prop or bluff to intimidate someone is one nonviolent alternative (not that she needed a gun; as I mentioned previously, a scary dog on the property would do the trick, but in this instance a gun was the scariest thing around). Against my better judgment, I could provide another scenario, though:

Around noon, Paul Slater rings the doorbell. He’s canvassing houses in the neighborhood looking for a vacant home to burglarize. No car is in the driveway, so he’s checking to confirm no one’s home. He has a crowbar in his car in case his hunch is right. Melinda Herman is working in her home office upstairs and neglects to answer the door, hoping the solicitor she presumes is calling will leave. When Slater rings the doorbell repeatedly, she grows worried. Her two children are home, as well, but her husband is away.

From an upper floor window, she looks out to see an intimidating stranger at her door. She opens the window and calls to him cautiously, “Can I help you?”

He looks up in surprise. “Uh, I’m looking for Coach Williams,” he lies.

“No one by that name lives here,” she answers. Craning her neck, she shouts over her shoulder, “What’s that? I don’t know! He says he’s looking for a Coach Williams!” She steps away from the window slightly, as if listening to a distant reply. “What?! Yes! Coach …” She looks back at Slater. “Williams, you said? You sure you have the right neighborhood? If you wait a moment, I can have my husband look him up on the Internet.”

Slater starts to back away from the door, hoping the hand he’s using to shield his eyes from the sun will partly hide his face. “Uh, that’s fine, Ma’am. I must have the wrong address. Thanks.” He quickly turns and heads back to his car. Before she can jot down the license plate number, the vehicle has sped off down the street.

Have you ever been hit with a wrecking bar (commonly called a crowbar but entirely different, a crowbar is straight and typically about 5-6' long)? I have. It was a light hit and hurt like hell. Someone wielding a wrecking bar when attacking someone is, indeed, armed with a very deadly weapon.

The accounts I read were not specific about the nature of the “crowbar.” The sheriff reportedly said the burglar grabbed it to break in, most likely thinking no one was home. I’ll take your word that it was a wrecking bar and a dangerous weapon when wielded as such, though I’m not sure it was originally intended for assault.

Different people have different reactions. My thoughts were, "Thank god she was armed and knew how to use it, thank god they are all safe, I feel bad for her, I hope I never have to shoot someone, I hope the kids didn't actually see it, and if they did I hope their parents can help them deal with it."

Your comments are a nice change from some of the bloodthirsty drivel I’ve read elsewhere.

Have you ever climbed down a rope ladder? It's not that easy, especially when against a building. Trying to help two kids negotiate one, without one or more of you falling, and getting it all done before someone gets you wouldn't be easy.

Then who's to say she didn't have one, but decided being exposed at a window in a room where the attacker would have room to maneuver was a greater risk than hiding in the attic where her attacker had to come through a confined space.

Is a rope ladder riskier than a gun? Rope ladders can also serve multiple purposes (e.g., as fire escapes), but my ideas were a pretty sad attempt to channel Macgyver instead of Rambo. On a more serious note, the outcome of one particular incident does not negate the risk involved, and my concerns about safety are not unwarranted. One study conducted in Philadelphia found that participants were more likely to be injured in an assault when armed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/), though a critique published in the same journal discredited the study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866589/). At the very least, consider some of the other research out there if my own arguments are unpersuasive (http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/ , http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full#ref-1 , http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf, http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/ ).

When I said non-trophy hunting I was including sport. I don't like trophy and sport hunting. I have mixed feelings about it for animal control. But many people hunt for food, many needing it to make ends meet. Not everyone can run to the store for food any time they want. Many people don't like factory farming and choose to eat wild and home grown food. They should have that right and not be forced to spend money at a grocery store.

I’m glad you clarified what you meant. What percentage of the population are subsistence hunters? If hunters comprise about 7% of the U.S. population, I’m willing to bet only a small minority depend exclusively on hunting for food. Of course, there is a fierce debate about hunting, as well, but let’s leave that for another thread.

Distrust? I said nothing whatsoever about distrusting them. The fact of the matter is that it's not possible for law enforcement to take on the responsibility of protecting everyone. The country couldn't afford it and people wouldn't want that many police around anyway.

As for community support and infrastructure. I don't know what you mean. Walls with glass shards on them around all houses? 10' chain link with razor wire? I don't know? For me the risk of home invasion is low enough that the cost benefit comes down on the side of a gun, if I move I can easily take it with me. Also many neighborhoods have covenants and it might be hard to get approval for either of the above.
Community support? So only people living in isolated locations should be allowed to be armed in their homes? What if you live in a neighborhood and everyone has gone to the 4th of july parade in town while you're home sick?

For me, shooting someone would be an absolute last resort. Would I retreat first? Yes, if possible. Would I hate to have to shoot someone, absolutely. Would I do it if I had to? I sure hope so.

Aren’t you arguing that individuals need guns because they cannot entrust their personal safety to the police? Most people do not require police assistance, so an average ratio of 1 officer per 500 civilians is not necessarily insufficient. In fact, police are now utilizing Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDATS), employing maps, data collection, and algorithms to help identify focal points and predict where crimes will occur, so that police deployment is more effective and efficient. Strategic patrolling can foster the impression that an area is well protected, even when there are fewer officers on the streets, and that alone can be a crime deterrent.

Environment is also important, because certain places attract crime. Criminals are more likely to gravitate towards dark alleyways and abandoned buildings than open plazas and well-lit development complexes. Certain establishments, such as gas stations, minimarts, outdoor atms, schools, university campuses, bars, bus stations, and adult entertainment districts may inspire a specific type of criminal activity, and careful zoning can serve to protect residential areas from criminal hotspots. Roads can connect poor and affluent neighborhoods, bringing burglary to wealthier communities and subjecting commuters to car jackings, while highways and bridges can become physical barriers segregating ethnic enclaves. Bohemian garden cities may foster tight-knit communities in which public facilities (grocery stores, police stations, schools, etc.) are all within walking distance of each resident’s home, while suburban sprawl may serve to isolate vehicle-bound homeowners. These are just a few examples of the possible impact of infrastructure on crime, though there are many other factors (education, income, demographics, mental health, etc.) to consider, as well.

My comments regarding community support were intended to challenge arguments inflating the need and demand for guns, not policy regulating supply. As an urban dweller forced to rely on public transportation while navigating a medium-sized city alone, I either trust that the majority of my fellow commuters share my sense of community responsibility, are mostly sane, and would rally to protect each other in the event of an assault or accident, or I assume the incentive to behave violently is nonexistent. I am dependent on anonymous strangers, as they are dependent on me, to report suspicious activities or destructive behavior. I must also trust that they are not carrying dangerous weapons, or, at the very least, they know how to use them responsibly. Notions that I exist independently and that my personal freedoms come at no cost simply do not apply. I do not recommend allowing guns in crowded spaces or among congested populations for the simple reason that a stray bullet has a greater likelihood of hitting someone. That does not mean that people who choose to abandon civilization are entitled to gun ownership either.

To actually consider carrying a firearm, I would have to perceive that my safety is compromised and that owning a gun would reduce my chances of injury in the event of an assault. Probabilistically, however, have I really ensured my safety? Now, I have not only concluded that my anxiety is well-founded, which could lead to paranoia and overreaction on my part, but I have introduced a weapon with lethal capacity to any possible incident, which then demands that my conduct and attentiveness be exemplary enough to avoid accident and quell any possible confrontation. All of this assumes I am not inviting confrontation or causing a bad situation to escalate by predisposing myself to such eventualities in the first place. Then there is also the possibility of inflicting injury on some unsuspecting innocent, which is worse than becoming a victim in my mind.

I am not trying to impose my standards on anyone else, per se, but if research finds that the benefits of guns do not justify the costs, or that certain adjustments (limits on ammo, modifications to guns, background checks, etc.) could greatly reduce the hazards involved , I think we should adjust our policies accordingly. I am objecting to any mindset that inexplicably dismisses statistical analysis and any challenge to manmade constitutional amendments and laws, as if the men who invented them had not anticipated the need for flexibility and eventual change themselves. If we both want the same thing, and I think we do, I do not object to your stance at all, provided you are willing to consider mine.

 

[about_average]

I am not trying to impose my standards on anyone else, per se, but if research finds that the benefits of guns do not justify the costs, or that certain adjustments (limits on ammo, modifications to guns, background checks, etc.) could greatly reduce the hazards involved , I think we should adjust our policies accordingly.

My gut feeling, also based on anecdotal information, is that I'll be very surprised if research definitively shows the risk of guns outweighs the benefit. But even if it does, how many victims lives are we willing to sacrifice to save innocents from lunatics, and is that even the best option?
I'm all for background checks. The "dangerous" accessories (like silencers) are already against the law, as are converting a semi-automatic to full auto. Because of their size, weight and cumbersomeness, I'm not convinced that banning large magazines will have any benefit.

I am objecting to any mindset that inexplicably dismisses statistical analysis and any challenge to manmade constitutional amendments and laws, as if the men who invented them had not anticipated the need for flexibility and eventual change themselves.

I dislike close mindedness and extremism on either side of any topic.

If we both want the same thing, and I think we do, I do not object to your stance at all, provided you are willing to consider mine.

I'm more than willing to consider it. I obviously think some of your proposals, while possible for some, maybe many, are too simplistic to be useful for the majority. I'm more than happy to be convinced otherwise.

A shame we can't discuss in person over a few drinks. I suck at typing and don't have the patience for long replies. lol

 

[UrsulaX]

A shame we can't discuss in person over a few drinks.

I agree!

I suck at typing and don't have the patience for long replies. lol

Yeah, it's pretty tiring. I think I'm done with long replies for a while.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

http://i.imgur.com/V3pFy.gif

 

[about_average]

I agree!




Yeah, it's pretty tiring. I think I'm done with long replies for a while.

Ok, where should we meet? LOL

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

Everything he said was entirely accurate...no such thing as 100 round clips.

http://www.allnineyards.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/10-round-5.56-clip.jpg

^^ 10 round clips

let's goto war http://i.imgur.com/w1UMS.gif

 

[UrsulaX]

"It never should have come to that. No one in elementary school or anywhere else, for that matter, should have to defend against...any...firearm."

I understand...

...you also want to teach the world to sing in 3-pt. harmony and buy everyone a Coke. So, I am not surprised you also imagine dead people agreeing with you...

...you're a utopian - we've already covered that fact. Let's deal with reality, though, huh?

Fact is, one armed and trained police officer, one armed and trained teacher, one armed and trained administer, one armed and trained janitor...

...any one could've easily taken-out that 20-year old murderous punk before he got close to the kids.

But, you utopians prefer to imagine that the 26 killed would rather see the fantasyland you do ...

...instead of them being alive today, safe with their families tonight, getting ready for a new school week tomorrow, and thankful to those who risked their own lives to save theirs.

How many firearms are in circulation in America today? How are you going to practically deal with that fact of life?

Wave your utopian wand and make them all disappear?



No...

...your "probably" is your full absence of courage to actually stand-up for what you spout: you don't walk like you talk.

Now, with utopianism, that's fully understandable because there is no practical walk associated with fantasy.

But what you're actually championing - without the fortitude to stand-up for it - is the absolute elimination of an American's unalienable right to bear arms and, of course then, the repeal of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America which prevents any individual or government from infringing on that unalienable right in the first place.

So, like all other statists (to varying degrees), you're both a utopian and a champion of lawlessness...

...you aim to employ the force of the collective to illegally deny an individual his unalienable right to defend his own individual liberty and the individual liberty of others (like the 26 dead in Newton) against any and all enemies.

And anyone even wonders why the framers' specifically enshrined the right to bear arms as the primary weapon to defend against such evil tyranny?



A "proof" request from a utopian?

Now...

...that's friggin' funny.

As far as Latin goes: I leave dead languages to Byron; you should tell him you champion denying him his unalienable right to bear arms and see how that goes.



I'm about as "right-wing" as you are a lover of individual liberty.

Whatever we may call ourselves, you seem to offer nothing but abysmally low standards, selective readings of the constitution, and ad hominem attacks. This could be a much more interesting discussion, you know.

 

[UrsulaX]

Ok, where should we meet? LOL

Georgia! Definitely Georgia! (It's -4 degrees here today.)

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

LMAO
Good job moving the goal posts when you realize you're wrong.

Here's your original postI'll let you figure it out on your own.

When should I expect my money?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

because people compare AR15s and M16s all the time and they are different too.

just because they look alike doesn't make them the same. one is regulated and the other is semi-auto sporting rifle no different then the good old mini14 ranch rifle

What does that have to do with cars?

 

[about_average]

When should I expect my money?

LMAO
Are you drunk? A 5 year old could understand the difference between what I said, you denied, and what your new argument is.
Sober up and read it again.

 

[about_average]

Georgia! Definitely Georgia! (It's -4 degrees here today.)

I actually miss true cold weather.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

LMAO
Are you drunk? A 5 year old could understand the difference between what I said, you denied, and what your new argument is.
Sober up and read it again.

And you lost the wager. There are no legal consequences for a private individual selling a gun to a convicted felon. It doesn't matter how I phrase it. No such law exists.

When should I expect payment?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Funny. Still bullshit since you don't load those into your weapon, you use those to load your clip. Everything you say gives me more reason to doubt you're a veteran and not a lying piece of shit.

Last military weapon to use clips was the M1 garand back in WWII
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR7DwuJwez0KZbfj-dLmISAFJfVStTBVaO80NLe-3ZHaLNBnJ1lw5A-Vsk6

I won't say all...but 99.999999999999% of all semi autos since then use magazines, not clips....there is a distinct difference in design and mechanical function.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRV33ehnTrnR-OD546WeuFxoO3OnHjuALBYWx6IghVPU4DeOYF8ZA
^^ Clip.
http://stickman.rainierarms.com/galleries/Magpul%20III/IMG_8161%201028%20stick.jpg
^^ Magazine

IDGAF what you doubt...you are completely wrong, take your TKO like a big boy and
http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww155/Jlocoyote/deal-with-it.gif

 

[about_average]

And you lost the wager. There are no legal consequences for a private individual selling a gun to a convicted felon. It doesn't matter how I phrase it. No such law exists

A shame you weren't defense counsel for the private citizens currently serving time in prison for selling guns to convicted felons. I'm sure when you told the judge, "No such law exists", he'd have said, "Doh! Case dismissed." and slammed the gavel down.
Poor guys, if only they'd had you there.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

A shame you weren't defense counsel for the private citizens currently serving time in prison for selling guns to convicted felons. I'm sure when you told the judge, "No such law exists", he'd have said, "Doh! Case dismissed." and slammed the gavel down.
Poor guys, if only they'd had you there.

Two people wind up in the same coffee house. Person 1 sees Person 2 reading something gun related and strikes up a conversation. After they talk Person 1 finds out that Person 2 has gun they would be willing to part with. Person 1 offers a reasonable price and person 2 accepts. Within the hour the exchange is made and both parties leave very pleased. Person 1 turns out to be a 2 time convicted felon. Under what law does Person 2 face legal consequences?

I've been asking you to post the law since Sunday and you've been avoiding it.

 

[eyer]

Whatever we may call ourselves, you seem to offer nothing but abysmally low standards, selective readings of the constitution, and ad hominem attacks. This could be a much more interesting discussion, you know.

What is it that chains you so disingenuously that you will not publicly stand-up and call for a 28th Amendment to repeal the 2nd?

 

[Sean Renaud]

What is it that chains you so disingenuously that you will not publicly stand-up and call for a 28th Amendment to repeal the 2nd?

First, nobody really wants that.
Second, it would never pass.
Third, we've been common sensing our way around the Constitution for years, no reason to stop now.