HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Handguns...exacerba...

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:44 PM

"Handguns...exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing....

confrontation rather than avoiding it."

That's not a "Plea for Gun-Control". It's a plea for sanity to a culture that has gone gun-crazy. So why does the corporate media characterize Bob Costa's remarks as a "Plea for Gun-Control"? Could it be that it's easier to dismiss a plea for gun-control and harder to dismiss a plea for sanity?

BTW: If you haven't read Jason Whitlock's whole column, I suggest you do.


Football is embarrassingly tone deaf.

....

A 25-year-old kid gunned down his 22-year-old girlfriend in front of his mother and three-month-old child, and all he could think to do in the immediate aftermath is rush to thank his football coach and football employer. Belcher’s last moments on this earth weren’t spent thanking the mother who raised him or apologizing to the child he would orphan. His final words of gratitude and perhaps remorse were reserved for his football gods.

It should come as no surprise that Crennel, Chiefs players, Pioli, owner Clark Hunt and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell quickly agreed not to delay Sunday’s football congregation at Arrowhead Stadium.

....

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.
....

That is the message I wish Chiefs players, professional athletes and all of us would focus on Sunday and moving forward. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.

But we won’t. We’ll watch Sunday’s game and comfort ourselves with the false belief we’re incapable of the wickedness that exploded inside Jovan Belcher Saturday morning.


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/jovan-belcher-kansas-city-chiefs-murder-suicide-tragedy-girlfriend-self-leave-orphan-daughter-why-still-playing-sunday-120112

268 replies, 20176 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 268 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Handguns...exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing.... (Original post)
Junkdrawer Dec 2012 OP
jody Dec 2012 #1
Junkdrawer Dec 2012 #2
jody Dec 2012 #3
pscot Dec 2012 #6
jody Dec 2012 #7
Orrex Dec 2012 #45
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #51
jody Dec 2012 #54
Lex Dec 2012 #117
jody Dec 2012 #124
morningfog Dec 2012 #139
jody Dec 2012 #143
morningfog Dec 2012 #150
jody Dec 2012 #154
morningfog Dec 2012 #156
jody Dec 2012 #157
morningfog Dec 2012 #159
jody Dec 2012 #164
morningfog Dec 2012 #167
sarisataka Dec 2012 #172
beevul Dec 2012 #181
morningfog Dec 2012 #195
Ya Basta Dec 2012 #241
morningfog Dec 2012 #242
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #244
MrDiaz Dec 2012 #177
morningfog Dec 2012 #196
MrDiaz Dec 2012 #201
CTyankee Dec 2012 #215
patrice Dec 2012 #260
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #191
PavePusher Dec 2012 #208
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #223
PavePusher Dec 2012 #230
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #245
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #171
jody Dec 2012 #176
MrDiaz Dec 2012 #179
Junkdrawer Dec 2012 #182
MrDiaz Dec 2012 #186
morningfog Dec 2012 #197
G_j Dec 2012 #204
rwsanders Dec 2012 #50
jody Dec 2012 #52
Illinoischick Dec 2012 #9
Dont call me Shirley Dec 2012 #13
jody Dec 2012 #16
pasto76 Dec 2012 #19
jody Dec 2012 #30
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #67
beevul Dec 2012 #183
abelenkpe Dec 2012 #26
jody Dec 2012 #31
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #61
Berserker Dec 2012 #83
Whovian Dec 2012 #55
jody Dec 2012 #58
Whovian Dec 2012 #69
jody Dec 2012 #93
jeff47 Dec 2012 #114
jody Dec 2012 #120
jeff47 Dec 2012 #153
jody Dec 2012 #155
PavePusher Dec 2012 #209
Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #144
jeff47 Dec 2012 #152
Sancho Dec 2012 #95
jody Dec 2012 #106
Sancho Dec 2012 #145
jody Dec 2012 #151
Sancho Dec 2012 #166
Sancho Dec 2012 #170
jody Dec 2012 #175
Sancho Dec 2012 #203
beevul Dec 2012 #185
Sancho Dec 2012 #205
beevul Dec 2012 #233
Sancho Dec 2012 #240
beevul Dec 2012 #246
Sancho Dec 2012 #253
beevul Dec 2012 #265
Sancho Dec 2012 #266
beevul Dec 2012 #267
Sancho Dec 2012 #268
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #192
PavePusher Dec 2012 #210
Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #146
patrice Dec 2012 #109
PavePusher Dec 2012 #211
patrice Dec 2012 #221
PavePusher Dec 2012 #228
patrice Dec 2012 #229
PavePusher Dec 2012 #232
patrice Dec 2012 #234
PavePusher Dec 2012 #249
patrice Dec 2012 #237
patrice Dec 2012 #116
PavePusher Dec 2012 #212
patrice Dec 2012 #220
PavePusher Dec 2012 #225
patrice Dec 2012 #226
PavePusher Dec 2012 #231
patrice Dec 2012 #236
PavePusher Dec 2012 #248
patrice Dec 2012 #227
patrice Dec 2012 #122
PavePusher Dec 2012 #213
patrice Dec 2012 #239
PavePusher Dec 2012 #251
patrice Dec 2012 #255
PavePusher Dec 2012 #257
patrice Dec 2012 #261
PavePusher Dec 2012 #262
patrice Dec 2012 #263
patrice Dec 2012 #264
patrice Dec 2012 #127
PavePusher Dec 2012 #214
patrice Dec 2012 #243
PavePusher Dec 2012 #252
patrice Dec 2012 #128
PavePusher Dec 2012 #216
patrice Dec 2012 #235
PavePusher Dec 2012 #247
patrice Dec 2012 #256
green for victory Dec 2012 #160
PavePusher Dec 2012 #217
patrice Dec 2012 #238
PavePusher Dec 2012 #250
Skip Intro Dec 2012 #162
sarisataka Dec 2012 #4
Junkdrawer Dec 2012 #5
slackmaster Dec 2012 #21
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #62
sarisataka Dec 2012 #77
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #193
DanTex Dec 2012 #8
jody Dec 2012 #12
DanTex Dec 2012 #15
jody Dec 2012 #20
DanTex Dec 2012 #25
abelenkpe Dec 2012 #27
Squinch Dec 2012 #44
jody Dec 2012 #29
DanTex Dec 2012 #36
jody Dec 2012 #40
DanTex Dec 2012 #41
jody Dec 2012 #48
DanTex Dec 2012 #57
jody Dec 2012 #60
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #68
morningfog Dec 2012 #140
morningfog Dec 2012 #136
jody Dec 2012 #142
morningfog Dec 2012 #147
alp227 Dec 2012 #148
safeinOhio Dec 2012 #63
Berserker Dec 2012 #87
safeinOhio Dec 2012 #103
LAGC Dec 2012 #121
safeinOhio Dec 2012 #174
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #66
corneliamcgillicutty Dec 2012 #78
jody Dec 2012 #111
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #135
hack89 Dec 2012 #92
DanTex Dec 2012 #98
hack89 Dec 2012 #102
DanTex Dec 2012 #108
hack89 Dec 2012 #113
DanTex Dec 2012 #115
hack89 Dec 2012 #178
hack89 Dec 2012 #190
hack89 Dec 2012 #189
doc03 Dec 2012 #10
Berserker Dec 2012 #89
doc03 Dec 2012 #94
alp227 Dec 2012 #149
doc03 Dec 2012 #158
alp227 Dec 2012 #161
doc03 Dec 2012 #169
Dont call me Shirley Dec 2012 #11
humbled_opinion Dec 2012 #14
oberle Dec 2012 #18
jody Dec 2012 #56
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #72
snort Dec 2012 #76
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #85
jody Dec 2012 #96
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #131
jody Dec 2012 #134
PavePusher Dec 2012 #218
humbled_opinion Dec 2012 #79
jody Dec 2012 #100
Illinoischick Dec 2012 #64
Straw Man Dec 2012 #75
humbled_opinion Dec 2012 #82
Straw Man Dec 2012 #173
Berserker Dec 2012 #91
hack89 Dec 2012 #105
PavePusher Dec 2012 #219
slackmaster Dec 2012 #17
maindawg Dec 2012 #28
bluedigger Dec 2012 #53
slackmaster Dec 2012 #59
HockeyMom Dec 2012 #65
Straw Man Dec 2012 #84
Berserker Dec 2012 #101
bvar22 Dec 2012 #22
Hoyt Dec 2012 #42
bvar22 Dec 2012 #49
Hoyt Dec 2012 #71
hack89 Dec 2012 #97
Berserker Dec 2012 #107
bvar22 Dec 2012 #123
Hoyt Dec 2012 #126
bvar22 Dec 2012 #130
maindawg Dec 2012 #23
Squinch Dec 2012 #46
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #70
beevul Dec 2012 #188
1ProudAtheist Dec 2012 #24
patrice Dec 2012 #35
Junkdrawer Dec 2012 #39
elleng Dec 2012 #32
patrice Dec 2012 #33
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #81
baldguy Dec 2012 #34
Utopian Leftist Dec 2012 #37
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #73
WillyT Dec 2012 #38
Hoyt Dec 2012 #43
Junkdrawer Dec 2012 #47
Hoyt Dec 2012 #80
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #74
humbled_opinion Dec 2012 #86
Hoyt Dec 2012 #118
rDigital Dec 2012 #88
ancianita Dec 2012 #90
hack89 Dec 2012 #99
SomethingFishy Dec 2012 #104
Berserker Dec 2012 #110
SomethingFishy Dec 2012 #202
PavePusher Dec 2012 #222
Taverner Dec 2012 #112
Lex Dec 2012 #119
Berserker Dec 2012 #125
Lex Dec 2012 #129
Berserker Dec 2012 #132
bvar22 Dec 2012 #137
patrice Dec 2012 #133
patrice Dec 2012 #138
patrice Dec 2012 #141
flvegan Dec 2012 #163
krispos42 Dec 2012 #165
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #199
krispos42 Dec 2012 #224
Skip Intro Dec 2012 #168
Junkdrawer Dec 2012 #180
hack89 Dec 2012 #194
Junkdrawer Dec 2012 #206
hack89 Dec 2012 #207
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #258
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #184
duhneece Dec 2012 #187
liberal_at_heart Dec 2012 #198
Junkdrawer Dec 2012 #200
rainlillie Dec 2012 #254
JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2012 #259

Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:07 PM

1. Fact, govt. is not obligated to protect any individual not in custody. Question. who do you expect

 

to protect law abiding citizens?

Fact, handguns are the tool of choice for self-defense by 840,000 sworn law enforcement officers. Their privilege, not a right, is granted by government, not a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right possessed by law-abiding citizens as sovereign entities before they accepted the social contracts we honor as state constitutions and the Constitution.

Fact, PA (1776) and VT (1777) said in their constitutions:
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable/unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Fact, as inalienable/unalienable rights "defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property" could not have been given away when citizens through their states ratified our Constitution.

As asserted above handguns in particular and other firearms are the best choice for law abiding citizens to defend themselves and their property.

For those who disagree, they can call 911 and wait for law enforcement to arrive perhaps hours later and use chalk to outline the body.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:14 PM

2. I see you're not conflicted....

much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:16 PM

3. I'm not conflicted at all. Please refute any statement I made in my post. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:52 PM

6. Loathsome and disgusting,.


go crawl back under your rock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:54 PM

7. Please refute any statement I made. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:06 PM

45. For one thing, there is no such thing as an "inalienable right"

Allegedly inalienable rights are taken away all the time, in every state of the union. These include but are not limited to the so-called rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Any argument based on a notion of inalienable rights is based on a fiction. It may or may not be a good argument, but an appeal to inalienable rights doesn't grant it any special status or legitimacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:12 PM

51. I don't refute any of your bs, I just hope you "accidentally" refute yourself, and it hurts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:16 PM

54. Are you unable to refute my statements? That seems the case with your ad hominem attacks. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:55 PM

117. YOU refute the quote in the OP by Costas.

"Handguns...exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing
confrontation rather than avoiding it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #117)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:00 PM

124. Do you assert that "Handguns" produce those results? What about the other things criminals

 

use to attack victims?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #124)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:18 PM

139. Guns can exacerbate without having to refute any of your other BS.

The other things that criminals use to attack victims do not exacerbate, if anything they limit the effectiveness and deadliness of the attack. You are blinded by your love of a weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #139)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:24 PM

143. What facts I cited in #1 do you call BS? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #143)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:38 PM

150. Your so-called "facts" are irrelevant and stupid to this discussion. Red herring, strawmen

arguments.

You are one very afraid person. I feel sorry for you, hanging on to 18th century ideas as if you life depended on it. And you thin it really does. The point of the Costas discussion is not banning guns, as your paranoia seizes on, but rather the dangerous gun culture, which you seem to cling to.

As asserted above handguns in particular and other firearms are the best choice for law abiding citizens to defend themselves and their property.

For those who disagree, they can call 911 and wait for law enforcement to arrive perhaps hours later and use chalk to outline the body.


Your conclusions are not fact. The are products of your overactive imagination, paranoia and obsession with a weapon. You "facts" leading up to it are historical anecdotes and the police choice of weapon. Irrelevant and silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #150)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:52 PM

154. I did not say the statements you quote are facts. The facts I gave place the burden of proof on

 

those who would ban law abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms for self-defense to present arguments that would justify society abolishing unalienable/inalienable rights and creating a totalitarian central government.

The type of government that the founders fought the War of Independence to abolish.

I fight for all rights, enumerated and unenumerated, that our Constitution obligates government to protect.

In the earliest days of our nation congress passed a bill and the president signed it making it a crime to criticize the president and congress. People were convicted and imprisoned for writing things that if the law existed today would cause many of those who publish on DU to be serving time in prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #154)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:56 PM

156. Again, this discussion is not about abolishing the right to guns. You are trying to make it that.

It is about changing the pervasive gun culture that does not serve our society or security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #156)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:58 PM

157. You want to change the gun culture. What law do you propose to make that change? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #157)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:05 PM

159. Your agenda is getting the best of you.

It probably shouldn't start with a law. It should start with some common sense and people lessening their paranoia and their fear of their neighbor. But, you see, you jumped in, first response, derailing any conversation due to your deep abiding fear that any comment addressing the problem of gun culture in this country means that somewhere, somebody wants to destroy your very way of life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #159)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:19 PM

164. You refuse to acknowledge the obvious. OP introduces gun culture and gun control but no one

 

including you apparently has a clue how to change the gun culture, whatever that is, without using laws that are simply more gun control.

I just asked you what law do you propose to change the gun culture and you avoided it.

Perhaps you have a way of changing that gun culture without laws.

If so please state what you would do without laws to produce your desired change in the gun culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #164)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:24 PM

167. First of all, gun clinging rednecks should chill the fuck out and

quit being afraid of inner city black men. Not sure how to get through their ignorant skulls, maybe there is a law for that.

Next, drugs should be legalized. Mental health treated. Corporate media could find another creative outlet rather than glorifying the gun.

It will take a long time, but in time, the rabidly-afraid will see that their is no need to fear their neighbor to the point of building an arsenal.

And, if you think any of your toys would help you against a government turning against you, you are delusional. So, please don't even put forth that argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #167)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:05 AM

172. Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!

Next, drugs should be legalized. Mental health treated. Corporate media could find another creative outlet rather than glorifying the gun.


That is getting dangerously close to discussion. That could then lead towards reason, understanding, compromise and worst of all solutions.
What would we focus flamefests on then???



if you think any of your toys would help you against a government turning against you, you are delusional

Rather than a dissertation on the fine points of asymmetric warfare I will point out that in a conflict against the government, you don't have to win- just avoid loosing.
Given the current conditions of the USA, the odds of armed conflict against the government are extremely low (unless another Bush gets elected)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #167)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:31 AM

181. What an odd thing to say.

"Corporate media could find another creative outlet rather than glorifying the gun."

Isn't costas part of that "corporate media"?

Are you really trying to imply that corporate media is not almost exclusively on the gun control side of the issue?


Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #181)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:03 AM

195. Look at movies, video games and popular music and you will answer your own question.

Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #167)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:28 PM

241. Wow! So gun owners are "rednecks afraid of inner city black men."??

 

/looks over at gun vault...... /looks down at my brown skin





Talk about stereotyping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #241)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:31 PM

242. I didn't say all gun owners were.

Wow! Reading comprehension!

I was describing the problem with the gun culture and how to change it.

/looks over at the gun my grandfather gave me..../looks at my ability to be reasonable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #241)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:24 PM

244. Non-sequitor. You are not a redneck.

You would be one of the people rednecks out in the sticks fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #117)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:17 AM

177. do

 

forks make you fat, do pencils misspell words, do cars drive themselves? This man had something wrong with his brain he shot a women 9 times, now do you think if he REALLY wanted to kill her he couldn't of used a knife? or any other weapon for that matter? This whole thing against guns is stupid, I have been robbed, and shot and I can tell you from personal experience COPS DO NOT PROTECT THE CITIZENS, they come in after wards and clean up the mess and try to tell and assure you that they will do everything they can to "find the perp." (unlikely)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #177)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:04 AM

196. Same old talking points. A bunch or parrots you are.

Do you get them sent via mass email?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #196)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:54 AM

201. same old

 

response. Can't comment on anything with facts or answer any questions...just talk down to people...It's actually pretty sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #196)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:43 PM

215. And where are their charts? I miss those charts! We usually get the same ones in every gun

thread, kinda like at Christmas we always get Santas...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #177)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:03 AM

260. guns =/= forks =/= pencils =/= cars & pretending that they do ought to disqualify one to own

a gun, because one obviously does not understand the important and essential characteristics of a gun that make it what it is and why, therefore, we don't eat with our guns, nor drive them to work.

The character of the individual using a tool of any type is important to how exactly that tool is used to beneficial or to detrimental effect.

However, a personality that cannot control the desire to eat, or a personality that does not care enough to learn how to spell what it writes, or a personality that is an in-attentive driver does not have the same kind of effect upon the world that a personality that is an ir-responsible gun owner has upon the world. Eating is not the same thing as shooting. Spelling is not the same thing as shooting. Driving can be the closest comparison, but that comparison doesn't work on the basis of the danger to one's self incurred from ir-responsible driving, compared to the relatively small danger to one's self from the effective use of a gun (there's also a matter of frequency in the comparison too, i.e. how many times can you be ir-responsible with a car and get away with it, compared to how many times can you use a gun for what-the-fuck-ever and get away with it).

Plenty of us want to be reasonable about respect for gun ownership rights, but it's silly arguments such as "guns don't kill; people kill" that make that almost impossible, because such arguments reveal that the people making them have no real understanding what guns are, since they compare them to forks.

As I said above: take a bad situation such as what this football player did to his family and keep that situation entirely the same as what actually happen, same sick and/or troubled people with bad histories with one another, all the same problems, but change one thing: no guns in the situation. CLEARLY what the hell ever people are, it IS guns that kill. Even if someone attacks with a knife, the probability of succeeding in killing another person are considerably lower and the consequences of such an attack to the attacker are much DIFFERENT from standing-off at a safe distance and shooting them. If that difference between guns and knives or guns and forks or guns and anything else weren't significant, there would be no guns, or everything would be guns, because the differences wouldn't matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #117)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:29 AM

191. On the other hand, what "baits"

 

us to embrace avoiding conflict rather than engaging in it? Fear.

So which is better, living in fear or being willing to confront those who threaten you (which is all 99% of gun owners do).

Freedom SHOULD mean no having to live in fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #191)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:23 PM

208. "which is all 99% of gun owners do"

 

Got any evidence to support that? Are some 80 million gun owners going around threatening people every day?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #208)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:09 PM

223. Who said that?

 

I said the gun owners use it to confront those who threaten them. They don't go around doing the threatening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #223)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:09 PM

230. Argh, I completely misread your statement.

 

Pretty busy here today.

I offer my sincere apology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #230)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:58 PM

245. No prob

 

Have a good night!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:51 PM

171. 30,000 dead Americans every year from handguns.

If you don't think that refutes your "statements", you are hopeless.

Buh-bye. Thanks for helping me update my ignore list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #171)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:07 AM

176. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control reports Homicide Firearm 11,073 for 2010.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #171)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:23 AM

179. link please?

 

or are you just spouting lies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #179)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:32 AM

182. Here:

Suicide: 18,735 deaths
Homicide: 11,493 deaths
Unintentional: 554 deaths
Legal interventions: 333 deaths
Undetermined: 232 deaths

Total: 31,347 deaths



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/do-people-get-shot-every-year-facebook-post-says/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #182)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:42 AM

186. O I C

 

your adding suicides

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #186)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:06 AM

197. Suicides should be included.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #186)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:43 PM

204. duh

it did say death by handguns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:11 PM

50. That's too easy...

I find locking my front door works much better than a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rwsanders (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:14 PM

52. Understand and that's your choice. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:59 PM

9. I totally agree with you.

Unfortunately, I live in the only state that does not allow conceal carry.

Chicago has a has hand gun ban and it fails miserably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:11 PM

13. How about making that statement to the Native Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:22 PM

16. Please refute any statement I made. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:24 PM

19. bullshit. The "inalienable" part is about LIFE. It's one of the first things mentioned

your 2nd amendment is an afterthought. Hence, "amendment".

The people in Aurora earlier this year had the INALIENABLE right to LIVE through that movie.

Assault weapons are also the weapon of choice, and issue, to more than 1 million service men and women. That means we should all be toting combat loads right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:38 PM

30. Please refute any statement I made. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:36 PM

67. With all due respect.

You don't know what an assault weapon is.

These terms have meaning, or Congress wouldn't bother defining them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:34 AM

183. No, they really aren't.

"Assault weapons are also the weapon of choice, and issue, to more than 1 million service men and women."

No, they really aren't.

What you said there is 100 percent unequivocally false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:33 PM

26. Love how a plea for sanity always brings out the gun nuts ready to defend their stupid worship

of firearms. Makes me want to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:38 PM

31. Please refute any statement I made. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:30 PM

61. me too (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:11 PM

83. Wanting to take away

 

a self defense tool from sane people makes me want to puke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:19 PM

55. "... and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." from your thread.

 

There are far to many crazies out there armed to the teeth that on occasion decide to shoot and kill random citizens of our nation. My pursuit of happiness and safety would include making it impossible or at least harder for these sick people to get firearms. But then, there's that slippery wicket in which we don't know they are dangerous until after the shooting spree.

I just don't want to see the next Charles Whitman wannbee in my neighborhood or town as I buy groceries. I could have an RPG strapped to my back and it would be no help and would probably make me his or her first target. I just don't feel all that safe with so many nuts and so many guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:22 PM

58. Please refute any statement I made. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:39 PM

69. I just did. Happiness can be different things to different people.

 

Is your happiness more important than mine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:28 PM

93. To me it is. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #93)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:51 PM

114. Mine is to me. So that means we do what I say, right?

Oh, we don't? We actually have to come to some sort of compromise?

Perhaps if you flop backwards on the floor, screaming and kicking you'll get what you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #114)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:56 PM

120. The unique thing about our government is our Constitution requires it to protect the unalienable

 

rights of each citizen against the tyranny of a simple majority present in a true democracy.

SCOTUS says those rights preexist our Constitution and do not depend upon words written on paper.

Whether a citizen exercises one of those rights is a personal decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #120)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:47 PM

153. Actually, it's not unique.

Whether a citizen exercises one of those rights is a personal decision.

Should Belcher’s second amendment rights have superseded his girlfriend's right to not be murdered?

I'm not arguing for banning guns. I'm arguing that owning a handgun should require more oversight. Because of the large number of people who fail to be responsible gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #153)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:54 PM

155. IMO it was unique in 1776. It's also the longest surviving government, Iceland is questionable, of

 

any of the world's government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #153)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:24 PM

209. There is no Right to murder innocent people, under any Amendment. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #114)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:28 PM

144. It means you each make your own decisions...

 

You choose not to utilize weapons and others choose to use them. People who misuse their tools will face the consequence. Folks who do not adequately prepare themselves may be subject to violence and all that entails.

To each their own...

Perfect balance..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #144)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:43 PM

152. The problem is your decisions do not just affect yourself.

In the shooting under discussion, Belcher’s family, girlfriend, child, pseudo mother-in-law all get to live with his decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:29 PM

95. This is the part of your post that is logically wrong (and factually challenged)...

"As asserted above handguns in particular and other firearms are the best choice for law abiding citizens to defend themselves and their property.
For those who disagree, they can call 911 and wait for law enforcement to arrive perhaps hours later and use chalk to outline the body."

You state a false premise and false deduction from that assertion.

No, handguns are NOT the best choice for law abiding citizens to stay safe or "defend" themselves. There are MANY choices that society and individuals can make besides calling 911.

In fact, in today's world we should have permits, licenses, and insurance in order to own or possess guns. You should have to pass a background check, mental health check, and a test to obtain a firearm. Otherwise, possession should be an instance trip to jail (like a DUI). Also, you should have a renewable license to possess or carry a gun or buy ammunition. You should be required to buy insurance on any gun you own. You might even need an inspection (like your home), just like inspecting your car for safety. Then you can have a gun for defense or sport safely. Then there would be fewer gun accidents and crimes and assaults. Of course it would take a while to get a million guns off the street, but it could happen quickly if our society didn't have gun nuts trying to protect their "rights". BTW, I own guns, grew up in a hunting family on military bases, and I have taken training in the use of guns. I still think your assertion of "rights" is overblown, while the guns proliferation in our society is out of control. We need more gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:37 PM

106. Interesting but LEOs choose handguns as do 8 million citizens who possess CCW.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #106)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:29 PM

145. I know all about CCW...and it doesn't change the logical problem....

even in my youth (and generations before), you had a different world when original laws and constitutions were written. Today, the guns in the hands of your grandmother with a single shooting class are not a big problem. The problems are the guns in the hands of people who are emotional, ill, or criminal. There is no barrier to prevent the terrible mayhem caused by hormonal youth and mentally ill from obtaining powerful weapons. You can even be a self-appointed neighborhood guard here and go around shooting folks when you don't know what you are doing...there are no reasonable controls. Criminals can buy whatever they want at gun shows.

I wouldn't outlaw guns, but I'd make it a much more comprehensive process to obtain guns or ammunition. If you are an ok person, it's just like a driver's license or fishing permit; mostly inconvenient. If you possess a gun or ammunition without a current license, you'd loose the gun, go to jail, be evaluated, and face a serious penalty. If you want a more powerful gun, you would need more training and checking to get the permit.

In Florida, a DUI costs you your license, insurance, and about $5000 in lawyer's fees to get your license renewed and your car back. Meanwhile, you may spend the weekend in jail. Why not guns?

Also, you have to have insurance for your car, boat, and home. Why not require gun owners to carry insurance? It would cost you a bunch unless you attended safety classes, etc. That's another way to control unlawful gun use. If you posses a gun without insurance, you should lose the gun on the spot. Those insurance companies would quickly figure it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #145)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:41 PM

151. The right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is not limited to firearms. To begin, what federal

 

laws do you propose be added to those that already exist?

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44 and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-E/chapter-53

Then consider the practice of judges who sentence a convicted felon allow them to serve time for the crime, e.g. attempted murder, concurrently with the time sentenced for possessing a firearm.

IMO those sentences should be served sequentially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #151)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:24 PM

166. It doesn't matter if control laws were state or federal...

there may be variations. The point is NOT punishment for convicted felons who robbed a bank, etc. The point is BEFORE you possess a gun...so you can have all the guns you want, but it would be harder for the mentally ill or criminals to get them:

1.) you should pass a background and mental health check
2.) you should complete a gun safety course
3.) you should be issued a license to buy a gun or ammunition and you must present it to make a purchase
4.) you should probably be required to have an insurance policy
5.) if you are underage, you only get a learners permit and must be supervised when using a gun
6.) in some cases, like if there are children in your home, you may have to prove proper storage of guns (gun safe, trigger locks, etc.)
7.) more powerful guns (military, etc.) might require advanced training
8.) you can't sell or ship a gun without showing your license/permit
9.) LEO's or mental health professionals or judges can revoke your license if they have cause (like you threaten your neighbor or tell your psychiatrist that you plan to hurt someone)

If you have a gun in your possession without the license/permit:

1.) you lose the gun on the spot
2.) you are taken in for evaluation (a few days in jail and a mental health check?)
3.) you face a fine or maybe jail (like DUI) even if you weren't committing a crime other than possession without a license

I'm sure you get the idea. If you want to include crossbows, Star Trek phasers, and ICBM's as "arms" thats ok...it's the same principle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #151)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:34 PM

170. The laws you cite refer to dealers...

if they were enforced it would be a help, but I'd require a license to possess the gun. It would not be for dealers, but for anyone who has the gun in their hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #170)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:59 AM

175. No, the laws I cited are all federal laws that pertain to firearms. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #175)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:39 PM

203. Firearm dealers and collectors...not every user, buyer or owner.

The federal laws would be helpful if they extended to homeowners, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #145)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:41 AM

185. With all due respect, no you do not.

"Also, you have to have insurance for your car, boat, and home."

Insurance is not required to OWN any of those things.


Apples and oranges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #185)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:49 PM

205. That probably depends on your local state...

but you are required to have insurance to use the car, or get a mortgage, or keep a boat in the marina (at least in Florida). You can't register a car or boat here, or keep the boat at the dock of most places without proof of insurance. You can't get a tag or boat registration number without proof of insurance.

I believe that you usually have to provide proof of insurance in order to buy a car at most dealers. Otherwise, you'd have to have the car towed to your house so you could look at it sitting there.

I'm suggesting that gun owners should be required to carry insurance in order to possess or use a firearm. I would pay for it just like other forms of liability insurance. The insurance companies would likely have requirements and deny coverage if I had been diagnosed as mentally ill or had a criminal record. This is just like insurance companies denying me insurance if I had a bad driving record or history of accidence. At the least, by premiums would be much higher.

This would be yet another way to get control of all the guns ending up in the wrong hands, but allowing regular folks to have their protection or hunting fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #205)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:45 PM

233. Ownership vs public usage.

"but you are required to have insurance to use the car, or get a mortgage, or keep a boat in the marina (at least in Florida). "

One is only required to have insurance to USE a car on public property. Not to OWN one.

One is also not required to register a car simply to own it. As someone that has owned over 50 vehicles - many of them "parts cars" in multiple states, I know this to be true.

"I'm suggesting that gun owners should be required to carry insurance in order to possess or use a firearm."

Yes, you are. You're suggesting something thats just not required for the great great majority of things in America.

Make for me a simple list of things which one must be insured simply to own - not use in public - simply to own.

In making that list, you'll see my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #233)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:00 PM

240. You have to show proof of insurance to register a car or trailer in Florida...

at least the DMV asks for it. Our registration cards here have a place for the policy number and name of the insurance company. It used to be the same in SC and GA when I lived there. Even if you don't "own" it, you can't drive a borrowed car without a license and insurance. If you do, you are likely in violation of all kinds of things and also liable for damage that you do. Our auto insurance companies give us cards to put in the car with the VIN # and policy number and date of expiration. That's in case we're stopped.

Regardless, if you want to "own" a gun or anything else without ever using it, fine. If you want to ever shoot a gun, hunt with one, etc., then I'm suggesting you should have insurance against your background and level of responsibility and possible damage.

I'm saying that's the way it SHOULD be, just like I'm saying that you shouldn't have a gun, or buy a gun, or carry a gun unless you have a license to have it. It's not the current law, but I think it should be.

I'm a long time gun owner and I was hunting at 10 years old (I'm almost 60). I've had safety courses and I know the issues. Right now, it's too easy for youth, mentally/emotionally ill folks, or criminals to obtain or possess guns. I don't care if you "own" it. I only care that it's in your possession or that you are touching or using it.

I still think that we need to collect every gun instantly if the person possessing it doesn't have a license and insurance. That's my opinion. Instead of quibbling over "ownership", you miss the point that the person with the weapon in their hand shouldn't have it without a lot of trouble and jumping through hoops. If they break the rules, they should lose the gun and be hauled in on the spot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #240)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:03 AM

246. One need not "register" a car, simply to own it.

One need not "register" a car, simply to own it.

Licensing and registration are applicable only to public use, not private use or ownership.

I understand you're simply advocating what you think should be.

I'm simply saying it doesn't help your case conflating ownership with usage in public, which is what you were doing.


As far as collecting every gun instantly, if the person possessing it doesn't have a license and insurance, you're talking about the majority of the 300 million firearms in the hands of 80 plus million people, in America.

The majority of them are unlicensed, and uninsured.

If you could snap your fingers, "its now law", how much would that cost, and how are you going to pay for it?

Plus theres the issue of interstate versus intra state commerce. The federal government has jurisdiction in one of those areas, and not in the other.

Its fine to talk about what should happen when someone "breaks the rules", but how are you going to make that happen without "breaking the rules" to make it happen?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #246)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:42 AM

253. Here, you cannot "own" a car unless you buy it or someone gives it to you...

and you MUST pay taxes on it when you bring it to Florida regardless of the origin. All sales require the car to be taxed and/or registered and titled (depending on the type of vehicle), ergo, you must have proof of paying taxes and sometimes insurance in order to transfer the title or obtain a title if registration is required. Depending on where you park the car or boat - some locations also require all vehicles to be registered/insured.

I'm not confusing the "ownership". I don't CARE if you own anything. I'm saying if you DRIVE, the person must have a driver's license (and typically be an insured driver). If you POSSESS or USE a weapon, you MUST have a license for the PERSON. In addition, objects (like cars) should be followed through sales and transfers by REGISTRATION of the guns. It would be prudent to also require insurance. There are plenty of parallels for interstate sales and similar things.

I realize it would take a decade or more to get everyone under a new set of laws, but they would be similar to existing auto, boat, and registration laws. It would not cost a thing, because the costs would be collected in registration/licensing fees. It would be an additional cost to the gun owner/user/possessor! It would create a safer society.

This is entirely practical over a period of time. It would not take any guns away from lawful users. It would only deny or prevent youth, mentally ill, and criminals from easy access to guns. It would be a pain-in-the-ass, it would NOT prevent ALL crime or misuse, and it would cost money for the lawful users. It would also be a GOOD way to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #253)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:38 PM

265. That may be true...

"Here, you cannot "own" a car unless you buy it or someone gives it to you and you MUST pay taxes on it when you bring it to Florida regardless of the origin."

Are you required to bring it to florida if you own it?

"All sales require the car to be taxed and/or registered and titled (depending on the type of vehicle), ergo, you must have proof of paying taxes and sometimes insurance in order to transfer the title or obtain a title if registration is required. Depending on where you park the car or boat - some locations also require all vehicles to be registered/insured."

So, say...race cars don't have to be licensed or registered or insured, or say...off road vehicles?

As far as locations which have requirements - those locations I assume are optional - as in you can skip them if you choose.

"I'm not confusing the "ownership". I don't CARE if you own anything. I'm saying if you DRIVE, the person must have a driver's license (and typically be an insured driver)."

Again, I can drive all day long, never touch a public road, and never break a law. Its called private property, and such things as licensing and registration do not apply and are not required for use of a motor vehicle on it.

"There are plenty of parallels for interstate sales and similar things."

I'd like to see some of these, I'm drawing a blank there, myself.


"I realize it would take a decade or more to get everyone under a new set of laws, but they would be similar to existing auto, boat, and registration laws. It would not cost a thing, because the costs would be collected in registration/licensing fees. It would be an additional cost to the gun owner/user/possessor! It would create a safer society."

Heres the point at the heart of this, that you don't seem to get - maybe I'm not being clear here, and if thats the case, I appologize, but...

Similar to existing auto, boat, and registration laws would be that in MOST places in America, one is not required to license or register a motor vehicle or boat, nor be licensed to drive it, UNLESS one intends to use it in public areas.

No drivers license required to drive around on ones own property. I realize that to some city folks that might seem absurd, however, people really and truly do drive vehicles around on their own property all the time, unlicensed, unregistered, and legal.

Unless you're telling me that under your "plan" people could own and use firearms on private property without license or registration legally, ...

Then you are most certainly NOT talking "similar to existing auto, boat, and registration laws", and are in fact talking about a much farther reaching completely different animal.

"This is entirely practical over a period of time."

It would be entirely against federal law. The firearm owners protection act of 1986 makes registration at the federal level unlawful.

Here is the relevant excerpt from 18 USC 926(a):

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.



You realize also, that a prohibited person could not generally be prosecuted for failing to register right?

The Supreme Court has already ruled that a criminal in violation of gun laws CANNOT be prosecuted for failure to register, because doing so would violate the 5th Amendment protection against requiring self-incrimination.

As to the practicality of it, what would be the TOTAL cost of a system used to register 300 million firearms and 80 plus million people, and how prohibitive would that cost be to a person that only owns 1 or 2 guns?

What about to the collector that owns hundreds?

I think there are parts of this that you haven't thought all the way through yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #265)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:12 AM

266. It's time to quit arguing with you...

simply put:

Very few people "own" things like cars and guns but never use them. That's silly.

I believe that guns are out of control and we need stronger laws to keep the youth, emotionally/mentally ill, and criminals from having them.

BTW, Florida was one of the states that said that requiring everyone to have health insurance was unconstitutional too!!! They lost to to the most conservative supreme court ever. So none of the legal remedies to gun control are impossible if folks wanted to enact them.

I'll keep on saying and hope you figure it out (and I'm a gun owner). Lawful people who own or use or possess guns should have proof of background checks, training, and mental health clearance. Otherwise they should not possess those guns. Personally, I think gun ownership also should require insurance. All access to guns should have more barriers than currently exist.

I remember the Brady laws and other statues that have come and gone over my lifetime alone. I really don't care what combination of federal and state actions result in more controls that would keep us safer. Right now, there are too many people killed unnecessarily by guns and the majority of those folks should never have been allowed to have them.

I'm also tired of the professed loopholes like "collectors" and "self-incrimination". You must be reading the NRA literature. If you want, you can easily find the other side. If you count yourself as a gun nut, that fine. If you think it's ok for mentally ill folks, or criminals, or emotional teenagers to have easy access to powerful weapons; then speak up and say so!!! If not, then join me in changing the laws to make our society safer. We can do better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #266)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:10 PM

267. I thought we were discussing /shrug.

"I'm also tired of the professed loopholes like "collectors" and "self-incrimination". You must be reading the NRA literature."

Professed loopholes?

The 5th amendment is a loophole now? What nra literature am I reading?

When it comes to talking about potential legislation, gun collectors don't have a seat at the table?

I'll tell you the same thing I told someone else:

The way things currently stand, gun control on the federal level costs more votes than it brings to the table. Gun rights support, on the other hand, has no attatched parallel political cost.

What that means, is this:

Gun violence prevention advocates NEED the support of gun rights supporters if they want to get anything done legislatively. Gun rights supporters don't NEED the support of gun violence prevention supporters to get things done legislatively.

Think about that, really hard, and ask yourself if thats likely to change, especially if your chosen laws were enacted, and found to be unconstitutional, or an attempt to enact them was made, but due to ignoring the very people those laws are aimed at, it failed to pass political muster.

I'm for reducing gun violence, make no mistake, but there are several ways of attempting it that I and tens of millions of others that own guns and care about our rights where firearms are concerned, find absolutely unacceptable. Your ideas are among them.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #267)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:35 PM

268. You can get lots of information from the link below...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf

You may find registration, licensing, and extensive checks "unacceptable" if you want. The general outline of laws needed to curb gun violence are going to take away some of your "freedom", "rights', or dollars in order to protect others.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #145)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:35 AM

192. Do you contend that in this "different world" of the past

 

that we didn't have "people who are emotional, ill, or criminal"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #145)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:26 PM

210. Not one thing in your first paragraph illustrates any difference...

 

between then and now.

Criminals can buy whatever they want at gun shows.

Well, not really. The rules at gun shows are no different than in any other place.


Can we apply your draconian laws to all our other Constitutional Rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:29 PM

146. Why do you need to know about my personal property?

 

If I have 1 gun, 0 guns or 30 guns... what business is it of yours?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:40 PM

109. If guns were "the best choice" wouldn't that mean THE most efficacious? Is that the fact? No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #109)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:38 PM

211. Depends on circumstances. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #211)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:01 PM

221. Correct, ergo guns don't necessarily accomplish whatever it is that one assumes they

accomplish.

They are an oversimplified "answer" to a very complex set of factors. You may kill someone who apparently does need killing, but that fact does not insure your safety and, especially because it can be evaluated in an extremely limited sort of way, that fact may tilt the balance toward critical mass against your survival or against that of those about whom it is assumed that you care enough to intend to act in a manner that honestly is efficacious toward their survival, no matter what that might reasonably cost you in terms of immediate gratification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #221)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:51 PM

228. What defensive tools would not be "an oversimplified 'answer'"?

 

Is any weapon allowable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #228)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:06 PM

229. I was thinking of defensive tools that recognize the causes of danger, before it's too late.

Not, of course, that you can prevent all such equations, but at least that it IS possible to reduce them by commitment to some very strong factors that get ignored in favor of the easier, more immediately gratifying, illusions of power derived from weapons that are only "useful" when the danger is directly upon you, which to my mind is rather too late, even if you do manage to kill whomever "needs killing", because of the consequences of those actions not only directly to yourself, but to others and that includes those around whoever is now dead because of what they were doing that caused you to kill them.

Granting some possibility of the necessity of self-defense, wouldn't it be practical to keep that probability as low as possible? Or is it better to ignore things that cause danger, because __________________ ? If you ignore that stuff and the possibilities for danger increase, at what point does it exceed your ability to respond with ______________ ? Is it a good idea to ignore this long-range potential, just because of _____________ ?

Personally, I'm not opposed to responsible gun ownership, but I am opposed to gun ownership that sees itself as the cure for all kinds of dishonesty, with one's self and others, and ir-responsibility about bigger issues such as global climate change and endless war profiteering. It's stupid and it will not work to the ends that many people are likely envisioning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #229)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:26 PM

232. I really don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

But I will note that you seem fixated on killing. Self-defense only rarely results in death or wounding. Most cases, no shots are fired at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #232)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:46 PM

234. Are you telling me that people with guns don't kill others for anything but self defense? wow. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #234)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:22 AM

249. Again you are inventing things I did not say. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #232)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:09 PM

237. Please quote directly what part(s) you can't understand & I will clarify. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:53 PM

116. What, pray tell, is "natural" about the ability to hurl multiple small pieces of metal at wildly

extreme velocities from small holes in different kinds of highly engineered and tooled metal constructions consisting of tubes of various lengths, with wide varieties of firing mechanims and explosive charges, and with magazines of various exotic designs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #116)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:39 PM

212. Using tools is a natural ability of Homo Sapiens.

 

YMMV....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #212)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:55 PM

220. False equivalence. There are significant qualitative differences between tools, otherwise we'd all

still be using handsaws.

A gun is not a spoon and if it were, there would be no such thing as a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #220)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:41 PM

225. Non sequiteur.

 

We've used weapons since before intelligence sparked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #225)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:44 PM

226. So a knife is the same thing as an armed drone and, therefore, you have a "right" to use either

however you see fit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #226)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:11 PM

231. I didn't say anything like that.

 

But you knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #231)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:05 PM

236. You said that using tools is a natural ability of homo sapiens and, by implication, that's some kind

of natural right in the same manner that one has a right to be/do whatever one is born to as long as it does not harm others.

We are discussing weapons as an instance of tools and by inference it is possible, therefore, to say that everyone has as much right to use guns, a type of tool, as they have to use knives, another type of tool. And I am saying that is not the same type of right, because a gun is not a knife. It's tool-properties are not the same as a knife's tool-properties in ways that have significant impact upon the safety of others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #236)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:21 AM

248. The can both be used for constructive or destructive purposes.

 

A point you are struggling mightily to ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #225)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:47 PM

227. It's not a non sequiteur (sic) just because you fail to see the connection, in the same manner that

just because you can't hear certain frequencies of sound does not mean that they do not exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:00 PM

122. You assume that there is one and ONLY one way to defend life, liberty, property etc. & that way

which you have selected from ALL other ways is THE most effective means of "defense" that there is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #122)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:39 PM

213. Ummm, he said no such things. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #213)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:30 PM

239. How is saying handguns are the best choice not also saying one should do nothing less than the best

choice, which is to own and use handguns whenever one thinks there is danger?

If one does not do what is best, most efficacious, especially in regards to "danger" (actual or manufactured), what is the purpose of owning "the best choice"?

If one responds to "danger" with something less than "the best", what is the point of responding at all since failure in that response is apparently quite acceptable enough to refuse to use "the best" of one's resources?

I personally know the answers to these kinds of questions for myself, I am asking them here from the point of view of OP, because from that point of view we do in fact see that OP is indeed saying that there is one best defensive response to "danger" and that response is a gun, therefore, out of all of the other ways that one might defend against danger (actual or mis-perceived) one should ONLY use a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #239)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:31 AM

251. First you claimed he said ONLY choice, which was not true.

 

Now you claim he said BEST choice, which he did actually say.

Stop inventing, then back-peddling. It only makes you appear non-credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #251)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:31 AM

255. Tell me why the best choice would not be also the ONLY choice when it comes to "defense". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #255)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:37 AM

257. Because we have free will, and some people come to different results than others...

 

when running risk/benefit calculations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #257)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:23 AM

261. Free will? Let's not go there, rightnow, suffice it to say that I disagree with anyone who disputes

cause and effect, which, btw, can be why there are different results in the calculations of those cost:benefit ratios.

Though "best" is not my position: My point about how that which is the best means of defense is also the only means of defense has to do with, since it IS a defense situation, what happens if one fails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #261)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:34 AM

262. There are no guarantees.

 

"Best" does not equal "only", nor does it equal "guarantee".

You keep asserting that people mean things they don't; this is not a succesful debate tactic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #262)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:43 AM

263. Huh? Are you guaranteeing that there are no guarantees? & If you are defending yourself, why

would you engage in less than the best defense, since doing so can mean your end?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #262)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:53 AM

264. Sorry! I couldn't resist that. I actually agree with you. There are only probabilities. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:04 PM

127. Are you saying that BECAUSE police use guns, we should too, since police pose a threat to us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #127)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:42 PM

214. Well yes, patently, they can be a threat to innocent people.

 

But the true reason is that this is not a police state, police are not above the Citizens as rulers, and they are not usually in a position to offer immediate defense of the common Citizen. We must be prepared to defend ourselves as needed, using whatever lawful means we care to choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #214)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:35 PM

243. So, just how much danger are all of us in, from police & under what circumstances?

I have seen plenty of police brutality videos. None of it is excusable. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is WRONG that anything other than that ever EVER happens.

War Against Drugs aside (because I think the huge majority of Americans agree that the WAD should end) how many of these police brutality incidents should we estimate there are proportional to the other services that police provide? Is "defending" against these incidence worth the price of indiscriminate gun ownership?

I don't see how gun ownership significantly changes bad police. I am not certain that gun ownership, FOR SOME PEOPLE, doesn't evoke conditions in which the liabilities of persons and flaws and/or inadequacies of systems come together for tragic effect.

Additionally, are the rest of us supposed to risk SYG fanaticism in order to (INEFFECTIVELY) prevent all of that by means of, to all practical intents and purposes, indiscriminate gun ownership?

And: Why do I feel as though a significant amount of this defense of indiscriminate gun ownership comes from sources who have "nullification" itself as an absolutely permanent highest priority, an end in and of itself, and an end EVEN over whatever exactly and precisely it is that is that might be nullified (that's right, I am saying whatever it is that is nullified, it could be something that is JUST an EXCUSE to nullify) and such contrarians are, hence, concerned about legal consequences for *A*N*Y* nullification, doesn't really matter what for, and that's THEIR defense of that objective against those legal consequences at the expense of ALL of those who, given respected choices in whatever the issues are, would choose *N*O*T* to be drug into such situations by circumstances generated by people at least some of whom are likely ENSLAVED by their own blind contrarian assumptions, including those about things like secession.

I am talking about the possibility that this fevered defense of indiscriminate gun ownership, at least in some significant number of instances, is coming from the kinds of people who will "defend" every step to becoming the cabin-boys/girls and/or enforcers and grounds-keepers et al for those whom Matt Taibbi referred to as the coming citizenry of the Archipelagos, which path will be rewarded, lauded, and cheered on by people like Glenn Greenwald from some/any-where in the world on the side-lines, instead of being identified for what it really is, fascism at the point of many privately owned guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #243)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:37 AM

252. If the abuses become common/strong enough, we are equipped to fight back.

 

Hopefully that day will not become neccesary. But any defense against misuse of their powers should not be given up just because you don't like it or others might abuse it.

In the meantime, we have a historically effective method of defense (one of many) against the actions of common criminals. And violent crime occurs approx. 1.5 million times per year, according to DoJ/FBI stats.

The rest of your comment appears to be word salad, of null meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:06 PM

128. Or - are you saying that we face the same threats that police do, so we should have guns too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #128)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:43 PM

216. Yes, we face the same threats.

 

Criminals almost always attack non-police before being confronted by police.

This seems rather self-evident...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #216)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:52 PM

235. We, ALL of us, live in high probability of direct assault multiple times a day, just like

police are?

That is not at all self-evident and I find people who say things like that usually to be assuming waaaaaaaaaay more than they have any business assuming not only about me but about billions of other people.

You are claiming now to speak for all of those people in regards to their needs for "self defense"; you appear to have definite fascist tendencies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #235)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:15 AM

247. No, I have not said what you claim I said. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #247)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:35 AM

256. You are defending #1 and that's what #1 said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:07 PM

160. another fact

 

most, if not all, of these shootings are done by people that are either on hardcore psych meds or withdrawing from them. That is the case with this incident.

Why isn't more attention paid to that? Well the media isn't going to touch that one, because that might hurt ad revenue. In the middle of a "drug war" "drugs" are promoted 24/7 on family TV.

Thread after thread concentrating on the gun, no mention of the one thing that is common to all these shootings.

a quick look at this site tells the story

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

Thanks for speaking out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #160)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:44 PM

217. Well said, and definitely food for thought. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #217)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:16 PM

238. Ah! something we agree upon & which also definitely falls in the category of thinking about

other means of defense FIRST, instead of gunning-up and ignoring so many other factors and just waiting until you NEED a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #238)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:24 AM

250. I don't know anyone who recommends anything different. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:09 PM

162. +100. Image at bottom of your post says it all. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:32 PM

4. Very close

That's not a "Plea for Gun-Control". It's a plea for sanity to a culture that has gone gun-crazy.


It is not the gun, it is the culture that says disagreements can be met with lethal force.

Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.


They do no such thing. They are inanimate assemblies of metals, plastics and wood. Our society promotes confrontation, rewards those that are aggressive and sneers at compromise and backing down.

What a gun does it project pieces of metal at high speeds which do horrible, devastating damage when they strike a human. Yet without that operator acting in the mind set of 'need to win', 'respect and dissin', 'I don't have to stand for that or take your lip' a gun is no more dangerous than a paperweight.

Reteaching common courtesy, respect for others and that it is ok to walk away will reduce violence more than any gun control law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:37 PM

5. People chose to bring themselves closer to the brink by purchasing the gun....

Buying a bottle of booze doesn't get you drunk....but it sure helps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:25 PM

21. Yes, that is true. People who know they are close to the brink shouldn't buy guns.

 

As for the rest of us, i.e. MOST of us, our having guns doesn't pose any risk to anyone.

People need to be taught to resolve conflicts peacefully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:32 PM

62. Good point nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:07 PM

77. The purchase of a gun does not bring them closer to the brink

unless they are at risk, much like an alcoholic buying that bottle of booze.

I applaud your analogy, it is quite apt. Just as the bottle of booze cannot make you drink it a gun cannot make you use it. Some people buy booze to use irresponsibly, i.e. get drunk. Some buy guns to use irresponsibly- see youtube for examples. In both cases there is not intent to harm anyone.
There is a small percentage that will buy the booze intending to use it illegally, such as get drunk and drive, possibly injuring or killing someone.
Another small percentage acquires a gun for illegal purpose, to commit crime, mask their fears... they to may injure or kill another.

To buy a gun from a dealer you must have a background check, with several disqualifying categories. I would accept that requirement for private sales.
Booze- show you are over 21

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:39 AM

193. No always

 

I just bought two large bottles of booze (for rum and bourbon balls for Xmas) but those pose zero risk (along with the other bottles of booze we have in the house) of getting me drunk.

Just as having a gun in the house has never increased the chance of me hurting another person with it except in self defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:59 PM

8. It's true.

And despite all the controversy, what Costas said is pretty much in line with what experts on gun violence have found repeatedly in study after study: that guns make people less safe rather than more safe, that they increase risks of both homicide and suicide, and that arguments or conflicts are much more likely to result in death if there is a gun involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:10 PM

12. Please cite a credible study that supports your assertion. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:19 PM

15. The Harvard School of Public Health is a good starting point.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/

Here's a recent survey article:
http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf
This article summarizes the scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family. For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:24 PM

20. That study is not original research. Please cite a credible study. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:32 PM

25. That's because it is a survey paper. There are about 100 citations at the end of it, which

you can follow up on if you are interested. There are also a bunch of studies at the HSPH link. I would suggest that a good place to start, for someone unfamiliar with the literature, is to read a good survey paper first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:35 PM

27. You know they'll never read anything that goes against their religion. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:02 PM

44. As is being illustrated in this very thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:37 PM

29. #8 you said "that guns make people less safe rather than more safe". Prove it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:45 PM

36. Guns do make people less safe. If you are intent on ignoring the evidence, that's your choice.

On the other hand, if you want to actually learn something, then I suggest you read that survey paper and then follow up by examining the individual studies cited and so on. But it sounds to me like you have made up your mind already and are simply looking for ways to ignore or dismiss the science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:55 PM

40. I will not ignore any credible study you cite. Problem is you have not yet done so. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:58 PM

41. Of course, you will simply label any study that contradicts your dogma as "not credible".

In fact, you've already done that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:09 PM

48. Please cite any post in which I said a "study . . . [was] 'not credible'" without disputing the

 

statistical methods used to reach that studies conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:22 PM

57. This is getting a little silly.

I cited a paper, by the director of the injury control research center at Harvard School of Public Health, which surveyed the scientific evidence on gun violence and includes 100 citations to other studies and articles. You decided to simply ignore it because "it's not original research", as if that makes any difference at all.

Between that article, the 100 citations, and all of the studies on the HSPS website, there's enough reading to keep you busy for weeks. If you want to ignore it all, that's up to you. But to pretend that I haven't actually provided any evidence or studies is just plain silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:23 PM

60. No, the silly thing is you being unable to cite a credible study. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:39 PM

68. Perhaps your DU account has been hacked?

your responses are not making sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:19 PM

140. Yes, it is. The poster is far too transparent and obvious to be taken seriously.

This thread has been illuminating!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:15 PM

136. Evidence: 100% of all people killed by guns were killed by guns.

Had said guns not been in the hands of those who pulled the trigger, the gun would not be the cause of death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #136)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:22 PM

142. "hands of those who pulled the trigger" of course were innocent bystanders when that handgun killed

 

a victim.

Any law-abiding citizen who legally possesses a handgun and uses it to defend her/himself will have that action reviewed by the district attorney or similar official for the jurisdiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #142)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:32 PM

147. You are right, no one is shot by accident.

And criminals should be armed to the hilt!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:36 PM

148. But what about self defense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:32 PM

63. One of many

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121001/METRO02/210010399

just google "man accidentally shoots himself. tons and tons of examples of people being less safe because they had a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #63)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:19 PM

87. Man accidentally kills himself

 

Tons and tons of examples of people being less safe because they had a vehicle. Makes about as much fucking sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berserker (Reply #87)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:34 PM

103. Only I can't

drive my glock to work..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #103)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:56 PM

121. Kind of hard to defend your home with the the family car as well.

Although I guess you could try to run them over after you chase them out of your house with your frying pans and baking spoons...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #121)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:11 AM

174. In 63 years old and I have never needed to use

a gun for self-defense. Seem to need to use my car almost every day.

Then, I also have to register, license and insure my car. Every few years, I have to have my vision checked to drive a car. I have guns, have all of my life and I'd have no problems with registering, licensing and insuring them just like I do my cars. I'm not allowed to drive on the sidewalks either, so if you want to compare the 2, would you be in favor of no guns on sidewalks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:35 PM

66. Are you a computer generated responder?

these posts in this thread allegedly from you are pretty irritating and not illuminating. They are not adding to the conversation, they are making your argument seem weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #66)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:08 PM

78. I agree--that was my initial impression--robotic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #66)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:42 PM

111. Why don't you illuminate those who read this thread by providing facts. You can start by

 

refuting the statements I made in #1, if you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #111)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:14 PM

135. The fact is that if you are a real person

your account appears to have been hacked. Your posts are simple repetitions of the same few words post after post. And to top it off they are typical wrong wing talking points with the typical language.

It appears to me and at least one other that your account has been hacked and I do not know how to alert on such an odd thing.

Are we all open to having our accounts hacked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:26 PM

92. Yet as a society we have never been safer

gun violence (indeed violence of all kinds) is at historic lows and steadily declining. How is that possible as more people own guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #92)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:30 PM

98. Compared to Canada, UK, Germany, etc. we have far more homicide.

The rates of violent crime have dropped in the US for various reasons -- obviously guns are not the only factor, but it is equally obvious that gun availability is a significant factor driving homicide rates.

Also, you are wrong that more people own guns. In fact, less people own guns now than did in the early 90s when homicide rates were at their highest.

You really ought to try reading some of the scientific literature sometime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #98)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:34 PM

102. So the huge upswing in gun purchases are all repeat buyers? Got it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #102)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:39 PM

108. Here's GSS data on gun ownership rates:



The decline is at least partly demographic: gun owners tend to be older white males from rural areas, and the nation is becoming less white and less rural.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #108)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:47 PM

113. And older white males are not a particualary violent segment of society

by any objective measure so why bother with them? . On the other hand your survey is missing a key component - like the number of illegal guns in the hands of felons. Why not focus on them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #113)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:52 PM

115. You keep changing the subject every time you are proven wrong. And now you have ceased making

any sense at all. This thread is about the fact that guns make people less safe rather than more safe, a fact which is backed by scientific evidence. Including, for example, this football player and his wife, neither of whom, as far as I know, were felons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #115)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:21 AM

178. And yet we have never been safer

and next year will be even safer. What law short of a total ban would have prevented this tragedy? Is that what you want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #108)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:23 AM

190. So show me how GSS surveyed felons

because we certainly want a complete picture of gun ownership in America, don't we? Violent criminals are the real problem - lets fix that problem first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #98)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:21 AM

189. My town is just as safe as Canada, UK or Germany

2 gun murders in a population of 60K in the last 15 years. We go years without a shooting - alcohol related deaths are unfortunately a common occurrence.

And it is the same for most of Rhode Island - like every state, gun violence is very geographically concentrated in poor urban neighborhoods struggling with gangs, drugs, poverty and despair.

Perhaps we need to fix the root causes of violence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:01 PM

10. The righties were going nuts today on the local talk show,

they want Bob Costa fired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:22 PM

89. I'm a lefty

 

and I think the same. Kick my ass over that lefty!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berserker (Reply #89)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:28 PM

94. Whatever you think I can't see where someone should be fired for

giving his opinion. I own guns and to some degree I agree with him, but short of making all handguns illegal I don't know what you could do about it. The last I checked we still have freedom of speech. It 's not like he is being racist or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #94)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:37 PM

149. Freedom of speech = government can't prosecute speech, but employers may regulate workers' speech.

Simple as that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #149)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:02 PM

158. There is a lot of truth in what he said and voicing his opinion

doesn't harm anyone. I believe if he didn't have possession of a gun maybe he would have just got angry and raised his voice or maybe punched his girlfriend. I highly doubt he would have gone and clubbed himself to death with a baseball bat or gassed himself with his car exhaust in front of his coach. But like I said I don't know how you would stop such things unless you did away with all handguns. Apparently Bob Costas thinks handguns should be outlawed, that's his opinion I have no problem with that at all. He has a right to his opinion and we have the right to disagree. I have known several cases where people I know murdered someone or killed themselves and without the ready availability of a gun I doubt all of them would have carried out the act. I'll give you one example. Two guys I worked with got drunk one afternoon after work back in the 70's and decided they were going to shoot a black guy. They drive down the street and shoot the first one they see, a 17 year old high school kid walking home from school. Now if they didn't have a gun what do really think the odds would be they would have gotten out of the car and killed the boy with a baseball bat or a rock?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #158)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:08 PM

161. Well, I'd say that psychos will find any way to harm another person,

whether a golf club or firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #161)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:30 PM

169. Believe me those two that shot the 17 year old boy down in

cold blood couldn't catch the kid or have the balls to beat him to death with a golf club.
Especially downtown main street in broad daylight in the middle of the afternoon. Also Costas wasn't blaming the gun it was the gun culture In this country. Watch a movie or a TV show or listen to people like John McCain, people are indoctrinated in this view that anything can be settled with a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:08 PM

11. What a level headed guy, Jason Whitlock. He needs to keep writing, being read

being quoted and being heard, especially among the duh fringe of the sports crowd.

Guns are stupid is as stupid does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:16 PM

14. I am not sure your post

belongs on a Democratic forum. I am fully in support of controlling access to all guns. The police should have guns the public should not. If there were not guns in the public than senseless murder like the one that happened here would never happen.
Think about this, people buy guns and have them for a long time, during their lives things happen to them and maybe their mental state is not quite what it was when they bought the gun. So now with a diminished mental state for whatever reason they intuitively grab their gun and use it in a crime of passion or a crime of rage, innocent people die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:23 PM

18. Here here

I agree with you fully. Unfortunately, it will never come to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:21 PM

56. Do you believe Democrat Obama lied when he promised "I will not take your shotgun away, I won't take

 

your rifle away, I will not take your handgun away"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:42 PM

72. And more evidence of hacking- using Democrat

rather than Democratic. It appears as though something is going wrong here. Only wrong wingers use Democrat rather than Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:05 PM

76. Alert this or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snort (Reply #76)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:14 PM

85. well I am not sure how to alert on a poster

in general....perhaps I need to post something over in Meta. It is weird, really. Glad I am not the only one thinking this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:29 PM

96. Do you believe Democrat Obama's statement was a lie as I asked? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #96)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:10 PM

131. has to be computer generated....what to do is the question nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #131)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:12 PM

134. Have a blissful evening and goodbye. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #72)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:47 PM

218. Huh? Sez who? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:09 PM

79. The President

Also said that he didn't agree with Gay marriage and he evolved on that issue. He is working toward stronger gun control policies but he is not an idiot. You have to educate the people away from guns, nice and slow steps..... but the point is in the principle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #79)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:32 PM

100. Do you have a quote where Obama evolved by saying in essence "I will take your shotgun away, I will

 

take your rifle away, I will take your handgun away"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:34 PM

64. Same can be said about a car, knife, hammer, chainsaw etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:59 PM

75. Because ...

If there were not guns in the public than senseless murder like the one that happened here would never happen.

... no one ever murdered anyone with anything other than a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #75)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:11 PM

82. That wasn't my point

but since you went there, you stand a whole heck of lot better chances of survival against everything other than a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:40 AM

173. That WAS your point.

I don't see how else one could parse your statement.

but since you went there, you stand a whole heck of lot better chances of survival against everything other than a gun.

Yes, I "went there." If your solution to crimes of domestic violence is removing the means by which they may be perpetrated, what do you suggest when the abusive partner is a professional football player? Mandatory shock-collar? Preventive manacles? Testosterone-depletion therapy?

Here's what one jealous boyfriend did:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-25/local/27059890_1_happy-land-social-club-hondurans-elias-colon

Good thing he didn't have a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:26 PM

91. YUP there here

 


Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection. Is this what you believe you poor sole?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:36 PM

105. 40 percent of Dems own guns

according to Gallup.

Sorry but pro-gun Democrats are not going anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:47 PM

219. What?!?! No-one was ever murdered before the advent of guns?

 

All my history books are lies....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:23 PM

17. I'm in agreement with much of Mr. Whitlock's commentary, however I see it as the culture of violence

 

Or, a culture that has gone violence-crazy rather than gun-crazy. Yes, having a gun exacerbates the problem of violent impulses and violent solutions to non-violent problems. People who are prone to inappropriate violence should not acquire guns or keep them within easy reach.

It's not hard to understand how a young, big, strong man who has been trained to attack and defeat others in the rough sport of football and had his ego fed by fame and money would be prone to violent outbursts. I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't happen more often. But it's clear from history that football players have more than their share of problems of that nature.

How can one expect an immature person who has been trained to attack and rewarded for smashing into and inflicting pain on others for all of his adult life not to act violently?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:35 PM

28. good point

they teach violence, and they teach team. Unity , loyalty. allegiance. This had to apologize to his coach, before he died.
Is this another black eye for the NFL? Or some thing that happens all aver ?
It is something that happens all over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:14 PM

53. If you didn't know he was a football player, he would have been the last person you expected.

"The Long Island, New York, native was a talented and versatile high school player at West Babylon High School, where he also played offensive tackle, nose guard and fullback and led his team to their first undefeated season as a senior.

Belcher also was a successful youth wrestler. He won three All-American selections in a sport he said on the Chiefs’ website helped him develop the character needed to try to break into the top U.S. professional league.

...

In fact, when Belcher was recruited by the University of Maine, it was as a wrestler, not as a football player, UMaine coach Jack Cosgrove said Saturday. The school took a chance with Belcher in his freshman year by putting him on the football team.

...

The linebacker started all 45 games while completing a degree in child development in just 3½ years, and his performances impressed enough to earn him reviews as one of the most promising players from a 'small school.' "
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/12/01/sports/belcher-battled-his-way-into-football-at-umaine-and-the-nfl/?ref=relatedSidebar

"Belcher was involved on campus with the Male Athletes Against Violence initiative and mentored a young man in the Big Brothers program, according to Bangor Daily News archives.

Members of Male Athletes Against Violence sign a pledge to educate themselves on domestic violence issues, to act as positive role models and to examine their own actions honestly."

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/12/01/news/state/at-umaine-belcher-was-involved-in-domestic-violence-awareness-group-impact-was-boundless/?ref=relatedSidebar

My emphasis

Something went very wrong in this young man's life, and brought great grief to those closest to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:23 PM

59. I didn't know much about him. That is very, no obvious sign of a typical "troubled" youth.

 

Perhaps he had issues from traumatic brain injuries.

The suicide this year of former San Diego Charger Junior Seau came as a great shock to the community here. Apparently nobody other than people very close to him know anything was wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:34 PM

65. If he had stayed in West Babylon

where my daughter's fiance graduated from, he in all likelyhood would never have been able to own a gun, period.

Move to a state where it is EASY to own gun, and then, oh, my, gotta own a gun because I CAN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #65)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:11 PM

84. West Babylon is Suffolk County.

If he had stayed in West Babylon

where my daughter's fiance graduated from, he in all likelyhood would never have been able to own a gun, period.

Move to a state where it is EASY to own gun, and then, oh, my, gotta own a gun because I CAN.

I know lots of people from Suffolk County who have handgun permits. Furthermore, long guns are available to anyone, provided he/she can pass the federal background check (NICS), like almost everywhere else in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #65)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:34 PM

101. He did not

 

commit murder then kill himself because he had a gun is that so hard to understand really?
He could have just weaved into and on coming semi and then it would have only a few saying OMG that's so tragic. But if it is a gun used holy shit you get all of these posts get it?.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:26 PM

22. My handgun certainly "exacerbates" my flaws.

I can't hit the target from more than 25 yards away with my .357 revolver.
That is a serious flaw.

As far as the rest of your claims,
those dots do not connect.

Someone with those flaws MAY be attracted to resorting to a handgun,
but those "flaws" are NOT Caused by the handgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:59 PM

42. Why would one need to shoot someone from that distance?

Way too many folks are arming up and training to shoot people in situations that really aren't self-defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:09 PM

49. Odd.

I haven't really thought about shooting someone...
at that distance or any other.
I was talking about my lack of skill at hitting a paper target at that distance with a particular handgun.

Do you often think about shooting people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:42 PM

71. I'm against toting in public, shooting someone running away with a CD player,

practicing with targets that resemble people, acquiring so-called assault weapons, NRA, etc.

Why would one need to shoot anything with a handgun at 25 yards (or two feet for that matter, except in highly unlikely situations) ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #71)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:30 PM

97. Who is talking about shooting people?

people shoot targets just to shoot targets, not in preparation for anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #71)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:37 PM

107. Except in highly unlikely situations?

 

LOL really only they happen thousands of times a year. No bad guys in your world?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #71)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:00 PM

123. I practice at 30 yards with handguns because...

..that is the distance across my pond, and getting closer just makes it too damn easy.

I also like being competent with all my tools and toys.
If I can hit at 30 yards, 10 yards is easier.
I live in a very rural area where guns are a part of the culture.
I enjoy shooting with friends and neighbors who have never tried to hit anything at that distance with a hand gun.
I usually end up earning some respect.

I don't particularly like hand guns,
but I will carry THIS one when working or hiking in Bear country.
I HAVE thought about shooting a Bear with this pistol,
but ONLY so that I am clear with myself exactly WHERE the Shoot/No Shoot line is.
That is something I don't want to have to think about when there is no time.

I was shooting my deer rifle in the back yard this afternoon,
iron sights at 80 yards, and during the entire time, I never thought about actually shooting a deer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1182456


I strongly believe that some people should never be allowed to own fire arms,
but don't believe that the availability of guns is what is causing our problems.
Our problems are rooted in a sick/violent, self-absorbed, pre-adolescent, greed & consumption culture,
and this IS getting WORSE, not better.
Maybe the "Survivalists" are right, and a collapse is near,
because it is obvious we are a nation in decline.

Some of "those" people (Survivalists) live back up in these Woods, and they are scary people. They fantasize about the day when it will be OK for them to shoot hungry people. They are certain the Apocalypse will start tomorrow, and they stockpile Guns, Ammo, and MREs. They are creepy, and we avoid them.
You would think they would spend some time actually Growing Something and Producing MORE instead of trying to figure out how to live in a hole.

This IS absolutely TRUE:
If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.
AT this point, I see NO viable way to restrict gun ownership.
Any effort expended on this is wasted.

I also agree with the gun nuts about an Assault Weapon ban,
because HOW do you define an Assault Weapon?
I know what one looks like (and don't own any), but that is not objective enough to formulate a LAW.
If you define one by function, then my semi-auto .22 varmint rifle qualifies.
I see no viable way to implement a law banning "Assault Rifles" since the definition is so vague and subjective.


Our guns stay loaded, and within easy reach on a rack in a back hallway, hidden from casual view by a visitor.
We consider our guns to be a deterrent only in that our neighbors KNOW we are armed and practice with them regularly.
We shoot them on our property enough to stay competent,
but I can not imagine a scenario where I actually shoot another human being.
My wife or critters would have to be under serious immediate threat before that thought would occur to me,
and I would probably attack with bare hands before thinking about going to get a gun.

Out here, it is a safe bet to assume everyone is armed,
but in the seven years we have lived out here (Ouachita Mountains of West-Central Arkansas, adjacent to the Ouachita National Forest) no one in this area has shot anyone, or been injured in an accident.

There IS a huge difference between living Out Here, and living in the Urbs or Sub-Urbs.
How do we pass legislation that recognizes that difference?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #123)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:04 PM

126. Enjoy your guns. So you tote in "urbs or sub-urbs?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #126)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:08 PM

130. Man, I don't even GO to the Urbs or SubUrbs anymore.

Why would I?

If I did though, I would probably carry a pistol in my vehicle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:27 PM

23. Costas wasnt advocating gun control

he was advocating sanity. Why is it, that I have to have a license to drive , because cars are deadly weapons, but I dont need a license to own a deadly weapon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maindawg (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:06 PM

46. On this subject, sanity is too much to request. There is just no reasoning.

Of course what you say is true. Good luck with convincing anyone who is against gun limitations.

Cause you know, guns don't......

....well, obviously they do, but we'll insist they don't....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maindawg (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:41 PM

70. You only need a license to operate a vehicle on a public road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maindawg (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:54 AM

188. uh...

"Why is it, that I have to have a license to drive , because cars are deadly weapons,"

You dont need a license to simply own a motor vehicle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:30 PM

24. This Is An Absolute Fabulous Message

 

that also applies to our nuclear weapons. Anyone who actually believes that our arsenal of them is purely for self defense probably also believes in the tooth fairy and the Great Pumpkin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1ProudAtheist (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:44 PM

35. +++1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1ProudAtheist (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:54 PM

39. RE: nuclear weapons. The "Truman needs the test before he confronts Stalin." story tells the tale..

American Playhouse's "Oppenheimer" was one of the best series EVER on TV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:41 PM

32. Thanks. I wonder how many know that this was written and earlier published by someone else.


Does anyone care, or just want to dump on Costas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:42 PM

33. In whatever tragic situation, all other factors being the same, it's the presence of a gun that

results in a significantly higher probability of harm or death.

Guns kill.

If guns didn't kill, people wouldn't own them and all of your crazies out there or people who make "mistakes" would be engaging in those behaviors by means of tools that have not only less dangerous consequences to their targets, but also whole different sets of consequences to those using those tools to assault others. The "decision" to strike someone with your fist has much different consequences to you, and hence figures differently in "decision" making processes, than standing off at a more inaccessible distance and pulling a trigger. The same is true for most of the other means by which one might assault another person.

"Defense", that is authentic defense and not just psycho feedback warping social systems, is another question that should be addressed in a broader context of what it is that one fears and how that fear becomes more OR LESS legitimate. If we can't figure out the difference between more OR LESS legitimate concerns, guns won't help and can contribute to the problems. To see guns as the sum-total of functional responses to these factors is closing the barn-door after the horse has been long gone. Without a fuller consideration of what danger actually is, where it is coming from, why, and HOW, precisely, this all happens, no amount of guns will ever be enough. Without an honest consideration of root causes, guns "for defense" only become part of the problem and all of it will just escalate into mutually assured destruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:10 PM

81. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:42 PM

34. And the gun worshipers are crucifying him for his plea for sanity.

Where does that put them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:52 PM

37. Hollywood is partly to blame . . .

America has always had a love affair with guns, and Hollywood has done a lot to glamorize them just as it glamorized smoking before, and for a while after we knew how deadly cigarettes are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Utopian Leftist (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:44 PM

73. So true and this has been my gripe for a very long time

To proceed we need to quite glorifying violence. In all media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:53 PM

38. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:01 PM

43. We need a campaign to change attitudes about guns, just like cigarettes,

corporate greed, bigotry, et

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:06 PM

47. The late-great Paul Newman did one in a series for a group called Cease Fire.....

I thought they were effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:10 PM

80. I will have to check those out. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:45 PM

74. Good idea! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:15 PM

86. but but but...

What about the Zombie Apocalypse how will we be prepared...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #86)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:55 PM

118. I swear gun culture makes absurd arguments.

Last edited Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:20 PM

88. Football is one of the most violent sports in the world. That man was MADE of violence. The gun is

 

an afterthought at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:24 PM

90. Actually, from growing up with gun culture, I'd say the gun culture encourages the opposite.

It damps down confrontation. People watch what they say and measure their words more. I don't think the OP is a fair or accurate description of gun culture. I've personally known of gun owners who've spent entire lives experiencing domestic violence, and never once was a gun even a consideration in settling those disputes. This is a high visibility event, which people often use to mischaracterize gun culture.

People don't tend to shoot over words, or arguments over sex, politics, or religion. They tend to shoot over breaches of trust -- infidelity, getting (unfairly) fired from a job, settling secret betrayals, ending bullying, etc., or sending a message to imagined powerful governmental enemies.

Police enforcement of gun laws about purchasing and possession is too lax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:31 PM

99. Alcohol does the same but the cost to society is much greater. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:36 PM

104. Well hand guns are made for killin' They ain't no good for nothin' else

And if you like to drink your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some ole fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me...

Mr.Saturday night special
Got a barrel that's blue and cold
Ain't no good for nothin'
But put a man six feet in a hole

-Ronnie Van Zant

Lynyrd Skynyrd is a known bastion of liberalism.. oh wait...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #104)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:41 PM

110. My hand gun

 

was made for protection not killin.

yup yesssyeree We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too. How Liberal of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berserker (Reply #110)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:07 AM

202. Bwhahahahahahaha!

Are you fucking kidding?

You bought a handgun for protection? Then you really don't know much about guns do you? You do realize that handguns are pretty much useless past a range of 10 feet? I'm sure when you are at "target" practice you are a real good shot. Problem is when the adrenaline is rushing and it's dark and confusing and you are scared you ain't gonna hit shit unless it's right in front of you.

And if it's price you are concerned with try a pawn shop. you can get a shotgun for $100 bucks or less, and you are pretty much assured of a hit with a nice 12 gauge.

Oh and I'm not a liberal because I think handguns are for fools? You must have a funny fucking definition of liberal. Handguns are cute and all but aside from target practice and scaring people they are pretty much useless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #202)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:05 PM

222. You watch too many bad movies or too much bad TV.

 

By the way, shotguns, at typical defensive ranges, require just as careful aim as any other type of firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:42 PM

112. OK, I guess this is where I say I don't agree with gun control because...

 

IT. DOESN'T. WORK.

Ever hear the Aesop Fable about Belling the Cat?

Here's a really creepy CGI cat to tell you the story...



OK, from that we learned that just because we agree to do something, doesn't mean we actually can do something.

There are thousands of guns out there.

Do you think their owners will surrender their weapons without a fight?

Do you think their owners won't suddenly have a burglary, where all of their weapons were stolen?

Do you think gun sales won't go underground?

OK - what about just more control over the guns...

Well - what do you propose?

National waiting period?

Closing loopholes?

Those seem like OK ideas, but they won't make any difference.

Guns exist, therefore they will be used.

That's how it goes with humans.

There are many responsible gun owners.

There are many irresponsible gun owners.

There are many responsible gun owners who become irresponsible gun owners within seconds.

If everyone had a gun, this would still happen.

If no one had a gun, this would still happen.

Wanna solve the problem?

Ask why this person went bonkers.

Ask why this previously responsible gun owner, sports superstar or average joe went koo koo and started killing everyone.

Cutting the leaves off a tree won't kill a tree any more than wishing it were dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #112)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:55 PM

119. It does work. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #119)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:00 PM

125. Link Please

 

that's how DU works. Prove gun control works.
All you have to say is GUNS and you get this.
GUNS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berserker (Reply #125)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:06 PM

129. Your little gif

is amusing and shows the mentality of the gun worshippers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #129)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:11 PM

132. AWWWW gun Worshippers

 

that's so cute. I don't worship guns at all. It is just a tool like a hammer or screwdriver do you own those potentially lethal tools? OMG if you do ...do you worship them?

Oh by the way where is your link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berserker (Reply #132)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:15 PM

137. I don't worship my guns either.

However, I DO worship my cordless drill/screwdriver.
THAT thing is MAGIC!!
I don't know how I ever got along without it!

I would probably shoot anybody who tried to fuck with my cordless drill!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berserker (Reply #125)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:11 PM

133. Not true. It's say, "Fuck economic & social justice" + say, "Guns!" = panic about gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berserker (Reply #125)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:17 PM

138. And it is guns that enables some people to say, "Fuck economic & social justice." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #138)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:19 PM

141. And those people definitely are not necessarily in law enforcement at Fed or state level as

suggested by post #1 in this thread, TTE, "I & mine have ours, so NULLIFY/fuck (or at least adopt an irresponsible attitude of malign neglect toward) anything that we disagree with, even if whatever it is is for the purposes of economic & social justice and we are willing to "defend" nullification with guns."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:11 PM

163. "exacerbate our...tempt us...bait us"

Seems it's on...us. Not the handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:24 PM

165. Does, or has, Bob Costas legally carried a concealed handgun?

Probably not, statistically speaking.

So then, do his opinions on what people who legally carry concealed have any basis in fact or personal experience?

Are his opinions based on observed handgun violence, which is predominately related to career criminals?



It sounds like he's portraying CCW permittees as the stereotypical Rambo wanna-be.


I suggest he get some training, get a permit, strap on a piece, and see how he feels. THEN he can get back to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #165)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:18 AM

199. One doesn't need to engage in aberrant behavior to recognize aberrance

Play with your own strap-on; leave Mr. Costas out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #199)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:41 PM

224. And, like Costas, you have zero credibility on this issue. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:27 PM

168. Guns simply aren't the problem. Moral decay is the problem.

A lack of parenting and a society that glorifies greed and selfishness and instant gratification is the problem. A resulting disdain for law and the rights of others is the problem. A resulting diminishing of the value of life is the problem.

Guns are tools. You don't ban hammers because some self-absorbed coward uses one as a weapon. The problem isn't with the tool. The problem is with the amoral product of a twisted society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #168)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:59 AM

180. Gun CULTURE. Guns have become a part of the Gangsta lifestyle one the one hand....

and part of Tea Party 'Murica on the other.

As long as we view guns as NECESSARY for social acceptance and self protection, incidents like Belcher's will continue to escalate.

You can't legislate culture. But you can add your voice to pleas for sanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #180)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:41 AM

194. What about those of us who are neither gangsters or Tea baggers?

just everyday Democrats who own guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #206)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:45 PM

207. Excellent post. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #194)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:44 AM

258. That is to say, the vast, overwhelming majority of gun owners.

Criminals and radical political extremists form a tiny minority of gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:39 AM

184. Whitlock correct -- "But we won’t."


We won't fall for the same old cliches about guns where we think if Belcher hadn't had a gun, then he and his wife would be alive.

It might not have happened as it did, but the terrible acts could still have happened. Of course he might not have killed her or himself had he not had a gun. We'll never really know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:47 AM

187. Guns in the home don't make one safer

DID YOU KNOW? Keeping a gun in the home raises the risk of homicide.

States with the highest levels of gun ownership have 114 percent higher firearm homicide rates and 60 percent higher homicide rates than states with the lowest gun ownership (Miller, Hemenway, and Azrael, 2007, pp. 659, 660).

The risk of homicide is three times higher in homes with firearms (Kellermann, 1993, p. 1084).

Higher gun ownership puts both men and women at a higher risk for homicide, particularly gun homicide (Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009).

DID YOU KNOW? Keeping a gun in the home raises the risk of suicide.

Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17 (Kellermann, p. 467, p. Wiebe, p. 771).

The association between firearm ownership and increased risk of suicide cannot be explained by a higher risk of psychiatric disorders in homes with guns (Miller, p. 183).

DID YOU KNOW? A gun in the home is more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

Every time a gun injures or kills in self-defense, it is used:

11 times for completed and attempted suicides (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263).
7 times in criminal assaults and homicides, and
4 times in unintentional shooting deaths or injuries.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gunsinthehome

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:11 AM

198. our media and our culture don't like to have the hard conversations

Most would rather ignore or dismiss them. I think it is because we are no longer capable of solving problems. We have lost the skill to sit down with someone we disagree with, listen, debate, and compromise to find solutions. Everyone would rather just say I'm right you're wrong and then nothing ever gets done. That's probably why we prefer to resolve our conflicts with violence because we are incapable of solving them non confrontationaly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #198)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:26 AM

200. Thank you for getting the point of the OP

You're in a decided minority.

Changes in culture are never legislated. Think women's rights. FIRST there has to be an overwhelming change in perception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:47 AM

254. I find it amazing that no one on TV is addressing the domestic violence part of the story..

I read that he had some issues in the past with violent outbursts towards his girlfriends. To me that's the bigger issue here. An abuser will find a way to do harm, whether, they're using a gun, a knife or their hands. I find it hard to believe that this was just a spur of the moment thing, usually cases that end like this, there was a pattern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rainlillie (Reply #254)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:51 AM

259. Sports stars are excused for their little foibles

Belcher's history of domestic violence would be swept under the carpet, like many players' histories of violence, anger issues, drunk driving incidents, sexual harassment, other crimes.

I'd bet there's a history going way back, before the professional career, high school and college transgressions that were given a pass, for the good of the team's win-loss record.

Suddenly, along comes a gun which invades Belcher's psyche and makes him do a bad thing? I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread