HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Gun Deaths Since Newtown

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:26 PM

Gun Deaths Since Newtown

Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:03 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm sorry if this has already been posted, but it bears repeating.

87 replies, 5117 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 87 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gun Deaths Since Newtown (Original post)
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 OP
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #1
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #2
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #8
Taitertots Jan 2013 #14
jeff47 Jan 2013 #25
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #45
mbperrin Jan 2013 #31
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #41
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #46
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #61
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #62
mikeysnot Jan 2013 #82
jeff47 Jan 2013 #48
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #63
jeff47 Jan 2013 #75
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #66
mbperrin Jan 2013 #79
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #80
mbperrin Jan 2013 #86
rl6214 Jan 2013 #3
freshwest Jan 2013 #83
Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #4
libdem4life Jan 2013 #5
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #6
Electric Monk Jan 2013 #12
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #16
SheilaT Jan 2013 #32
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #33
SheilaT Jan 2013 #34
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #35
SheilaT Jan 2013 #36
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #47
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #49
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #52
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #55
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #58
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #60
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #64
LanternWaste Jan 2013 #73
morningfog Jan 2013 #54
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #69
freshwest Jan 2013 #84
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #7
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #10
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #27
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #37
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #39
Electric Monk Jan 2013 #40
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #65
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #42
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #53
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #67
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #68
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #70
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #71
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #72
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #74
EX500rider Jan 2013 #77
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #78
jeff47 Jan 2013 #21
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #38
jeff47 Jan 2013 #44
CatFelyne Jan 2013 #9
Glassunion Jan 2013 #11
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #13
Glassunion Jan 2013 #15
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #17
Glassunion Jan 2013 #19
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #51
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #18
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #20
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #23
jeff47 Jan 2013 #26
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #28
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #22
Recursion Jan 2013 #24
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #29
laundry_queen Jan 2013 #30
Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2013 #76
Phentex Jan 2013 #43
kentuck Jan 2013 #50
Dpm12 Jan 2013 #56
Doctor_J Jan 2013 #57
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #59
sad-cafe Jan 2013 #81
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #85
sad-cafe Jan 2013 #87

Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:27 PM

1. Yep.

And gun humpers still think they have the right to their little Precious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:28 PM

2. What set me off....

Was the continued presence of the "mom shoots intruder" thread. Because finding one case of self defense is somehow proof of something....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:53 PM

8. One case? All of these have happened so far in 2013.

Two robbers shot dead in Hollywood, North Miami-Dade

A pair of would-be robbers were shot and killed by their victims in separate incidents in Hollywood and North Miami-Dade.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/15/3183760/two-robbers-shot-dead-in-hollywood.html
1/14/2013
------------------------

Robber faced Madera pharmacist who's an expert shooter

An attempt to rob a Madera pharmacy of cough medicine Tuesday night ignited a short but deadly gunfight between a gang member and a store owner who is a competitive pistol shooter.
Police Chief Steve Frazier said Thursday that it appeared the store owner, Bryan Lee, had little choice but to return fire when Aquilla Bailey, 31, burst into the Almond Avenue Pharmacy firing a .45 caliber Smith & Wesson pistol at Lee and his mother, Sophie. Lee, an Army veteran, returned fire with a 1911-model Colt .45.
Frazier said Bailey shot six or seven times, with one round hitting Sophie Lee in the leg. Lee fired five back, mortally wounding Bailey and also apparently shooting Bailey's fellow Dogpound gang member Jonte Harris, 27, twice in the leg.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/01/11/3129344/bandit-opened-fire-at-pharmacy.html


CPD: Man Defending Infant Son Shoots Robber

According to the police report, a man told officers he was defending his 2-month-old son when he shot a suspect who robbed him at gunpoint in the driveway of his brother's west Columbus home Monday night.

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2013/jan/07/11/one-person-shot-during-robbery-ar-1303869/



Victim fires shots at burglar in East Ridge

A South Seminole Drive resident fired shots at a man trying to break into a home early Sunday, East Ridge police said.
Police spokesman Erik Hopkins said police responded at 1:47 a.m. to a reported burglary in progress.
On the way, they were told by dispatchers that shots had been fired at the scene. Officers arrived and found the suspect still on the porch of the home. He was taken into custody without further incident.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/13/victim-fires-shots-burglar-east-ridge-chattanooga/?breakingnewshttp://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/13/victim-fires-shots-burglar-east-ridge-chatt

Would-be burglar shot at Sherman scrap yard

GRAYSON COUNTY, TX - The Grayson County Sheriff's Office is investigating an early morning shooting at Stinky's Scrap Metal off 1417 in Sherman.
The sheriff's department got a call at 3:30 this morning that an employee had shot an intruder.
Lt. Rickey Wheeler says there were two intruders on the property trying to steal scrap metal.
http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/Man-shot-at-Sherman-scrap-yard-186988931.html

Burglars Shot in Deadly Confrontation

Police say an alleged burglar is dead and another in critical condition after they are confronted by a resident.

It happened just after 2 a.m. in the 700 blk. of Lightstone.

Detectives say two men were trying to break into a vehicle when the owner confronted the pair.

Police say he shot both men and one of them tried to escape in a car and wrecked the vehicle down the street and died.
http://www.foxsanantonio.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/vid_13761.shtml

Mother shoots home intruder five times in face and neck after he cornered her in attic with her twins, 9
A would-be burglar was looking to cash in, but instead found himself in a world of pain when a Georgia mother who refused to be victimized shot him multiple times in the face and neck.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257966/Paul-Ali-Slater-Intruder-shot-times-face-neck-cornering-mother-kids-attic.html#ixzz2ICSId016
------------------------
Man fatally shoots intruder

A HOMEOWNER in the Powelton section of West Philadelphia fatally shot a man who had broken into his house Tuesday night, police said.
Cops said the man was upstairs in his home, on Wiota Street near Spring Garden, when he heard the intruder break into the house through his kitchen door about 9 p.m. The intruder made it to the living room, with a spade shovel in hand, and started up the stairs to the second floor when police say the 37-year-old homeowner shot him three times in the chest.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20130116_Man_fatally_shoots_intruder.html
HPD: Witnesses shoot robbery suspect
HOUSTON -
Two witnesses opened fire on a man after a robbery in southeast Houston, investigators said.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/HPD-Witnesses-shoot-robbery-suspect/-/1735978/18093108/-/cdmob7/-/index.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:07 AM

14. I'll bet they are all up on the graphic in the OP along with pellet gun accidents and suicides n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:41 AM

25. /Looks at your list

/looks at list above.

I don't think those are quite even. You may want to dig up some more.

You might also try to explain why all these examples that did not use assault rifles require keeping assault rifles legal. Or high-capacity magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:18 AM

45. And many of these were not life-threatening...

In one case, it was the owner of a scrap metal yard who shot two guys who were trying to steal material from his property. All the owner had to do was call the police and wait.

In another case, a homeowner shot two car thieves in the street in front of his house as they were trying to escape without harming the homeowner.

In another case, two passerby with guns opened fire on a mugger AFTER he had robbed (and left unharmed) a third party.

In another case, the man claiming that he was "defending his two month old son" shot the armed robber as he was fleeing the scene without harming the victim (or his son).

I'm totally sympathetic to people who feel they need a handgun to protect themselves and their homes. I'm totally sympathetic to the case (in the post above) of the store owner who being robbed and gunpoint and shoots his attacker. You point a gun at somebody, you should face the consequences. No arguments in the least.

But about have of the cases you cite are people who are basically exacting vigilante justice by shooting a criminal when the criminal is not making any attempt to harm them. In the cases I mentioned here, they were all just trying to get away and were not threatening the victim.

So we're talking 900 homicides vs. a half dozen justifiable shootings.

And has been pointed out elsewhere, none of these cases involved assault rifles, much less high-capacity magazines.

Fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:37 AM

31. So 5 bad guys shot dead while 900+ innocents shot in same time period.

And you think is some acceptable ratio?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mbperrin (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:22 AM

41. Do you really think violent criminals will voluntarily hand in their guns?

Do you think the suicides won't happen if there are no guns?

How many of those deaths were done by law-abinding people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:20 AM

46. Asked and Answered. See Post #7

You posted this same question just a few hours ago.

You need to get a new talking point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:12 PM

61. So far, you haven't answered it.

Almost all gun violence is committed by criminals. Your laws will not effect them. So how do you hope that taking my guns away will have any effect on gun violence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:23 PM

62. Uh....the laws DO effect criminals.

There are these places called prisons. We put criminals there. For a long time. The problem is that putting people in prison is an attempt to solve the problem after-the-fact. The crime has already been committed. The classroom has already been shot to pieces. The families are already grieving.

You're suggesting that since criminals will always commit crimes, that we should make it easier for them. Do you leave your doors unlocked at night? Keys in the ignation? No? Then why would you oppose a law that makes it harder for a criminal or a mental patient to obtain a firearm?

And as long as you remain a law-abiding citizen, nobody is taking your guns from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:50 PM

82. Cause only criminals have guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:29 AM

48. They don't have to. They use them.

Criminals don't have to turn in their guns because they use their guns. When they do, the gun is seized and destroyed.

Or had you failed to notice fully-automatic weapons are virtually never used by criminals today? "Tommy guns" and other automatic weapons were quite popular among criminals before they were banned. It appears banning those got them out of criminal hands.

And as mentioned below, other methods of suicide allow the person to have second thoughts and stop the process, and a very large number of suicide attempts result in the person deciding to not "finish the job". Gun-to-the-head is not reversible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:31 PM

63. Full-auto aren't that useful to criminals.

Movies greatly overrate the usefullness of full-auto. FA is hard to conceal, and runs out of ammo in a real hurry. In the movies, AKs never have to be reloaded, and with one sweep of fire cuts down enemies like wheat before a sythe. In real life you turn a lot of ammo into noise with no guarantee of hitting anybody.

If FA was actually in demand by criminals the same network that smuggles in drugs could bring in real assault rifles.

The black market keeps criminals well supplied in guns to replace those siezed. That is why I support Aoamz's efforts against gun trafficking.

Many suicide attempts are not genuine attempts at self-ending, but are "almost suicide" moves with the real goal of making a statement as a cry for help or to manipulate others. Some one chooses a gun really wants to get the job done.

If I should decide that I need to self-end (I'm not suicidal, but the possibility painful disease is a reality) then I will buy a bottle of pure nitrogen and rig up a mask and breathe pure nitrogen. Fast, painless, not messy, and you get a high on the way out. (Be sure to empty bowels and bladder first.) Do you want to outlaw possession of nitrogen? (It makes up about 77% of the air.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #63)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:58 PM

75. That's nice. But here in reality

we noticed that criminals were quite fond of full auto back when they were legal. Yet they are exceptionally rare today. It's not like full auto just started to use a lot of ammunition in the 80s.

If FA was actually in demand by criminals the same network that smuggles in drugs could bring in real assault rifles.

Why would they bother? Way more dollars per pound smuggling drugs.

The black market keeps criminals well supplied in guns to replace those siezed.

Which is why you find all sorts of banned weapons among criminals.....oh wait, you don't. They almost always use guns that aren't banned.

Some one chooses a gun really wants to get the job done.

Or is drunk, which is actually the most common condition where someone uses a gun for suicide. But that's that pesky "reality" thing again.

If I should decide that I need to self-end (...) then I will buy a bottle of pure nitrogen and rig up a mask and breathe pure nitrogen. (...) Do you want to outlaw possession of nitrogen?

You aren't this dumb. Please stop pretending that you are. The problem with guns for suicide is there isn't a way to reverse it. You could take off the mask, making it as reversible as the other methods under discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mbperrin (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:40 PM

66. Most of those shot were themselves criminals.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

In Baltimore, about 91% of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74% a decade ago, police reported.

In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.

The small children were innocent, but most of the rest (except for suicides) were criminal victims of other criminals. Legalize all drugs and that problem would greatly decrease.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:03 PM

79. Two cities do not a study make. Or let's reframe.

Since only criminals get shot, let's issue unlimited guns to anyone and give them a free pass as long as they shoot only people who have been arrested at least once. OK? Innocent people have nothing to fear, apparently.

The all-drug legalization is just a non-starter. You don't know many actual meth or heroin addicts, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mbperrin (Reply #79)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:08 PM

80. Didn't read the article, did you?

It is well known among criminologist that most murder victims are themselves criminals.

True, I don't know any addicts. But I do know that a very violent criminal underworld supplies them. Legalize drugs. It is their freedom to pollute their own bodies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #80)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:20 AM

86. I did read it, and it said just what I thought it said.

You really need to get to know some addicts - they don't just pollute their own bodies - meth and heroin people are the ones I know and are related to, and they create more damage, both to simple real property as well as your non-addict peace of mind, security of home, and future happiness as well.

Well, this has turned really non-productive, and has turned into a low-content discussion, so I'll wish you well and see you around DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:31 PM

3. How mature of you

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:35 PM

83. Posted on the wrong line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:36 PM

4. It was 812 just a few days ago!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:40 PM

5. This is a stunningly and powerfully non-gory graphic. I vote for posting it every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:41 PM

6. Go the the source....Post in on all Social Media (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Electric Monk (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:11 AM

16. This is very good (and updated constantly)

Post it to my wall just now. Thanks for sharing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:22 AM

32. And that map is off.

There's no dot where Santa Fe is, and we've had at least two gun deaths, probably more in the past month.

I do want to ask each and every gun apologist just where they draw the line. How many gun deaths are acceptable? How about the death by gun of your wife, or your child, or your parent? Oh. I see. It's okay if they die by guns, just so long as you can keep yours.

Fuckers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:26 AM

33. "How many gun deaths are acceptable? "

 

How many automobile deaths are acceptable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:33 AM

34. Oh, I get it. Automobiles are designed only to kill people.

Just like guns, right?

And automobile deaths, as tragic as they are, have been declining steadily since 1969. Too bad we can't say the same about gun deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:34 AM

35. Are guns designed to only kill people?

 

Really? People don't hunt or target shoot with them?

I wish I had known I've been using them wrong all these years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #35)


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:23 AM

47. Let's lay this idiotic talking point to rest...

Unless you want no one under the age of sixteen to own a firearm.

Unless you want a written test to determine if you can own a firearm.

Unless you want a state-issued license to own a firearm.

Unless you want to have mandatory liability insurance to own a firearm.

Unless you want registration of all firearm transactions.

You want to bring up the brain-dead analogy between cars and guns? Okie Dokie, we'll start treating gun ownership the same as car ownership.

License and registration, bub.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:29 AM

49. Let's save some time ...

 

ME: Owning firearms is a right, defined by the Constitution. Driving is not

YOU: Sure, as long as you belong to a militia

ME: The Heller Decision defines he right as individual, not dependent on militia membership

YOU: Yea, well Heller sucks

ME: But our own, Democrat, President has confirmed the same thing on several occasions

YOU ??

As long as the argument in favour of banning guns is safety, the comparison with other unsafe practices that cost lives (driving, swimming, marriage) remains valid and not "brain dead".

Unless, of course, you want to go with Sheila T's argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:52 AM

52. Good luck with Middle School...

You have a right to own a gun (what you're putting forward is called a "straw man" argument). And I'm not suggesting that you don't have a right to own a gun.

Your second-most brain-dead argument is that because a right is enshrined in the Constitution, it is somehow inviolable and unrestricted. Try sending classified military information to North Korea and see how far your First Amendment rights get you. Under the Fourth Amendment, police have to obtain a search warrant, except for the multiple exceptions to the rule that the Supreme Court has recognized over the years. For that matter, try carrying a handgun onto a commercial airliner and patiently argue about your Second Amendment rights with the TSA.

There's no such thing as an absolute right. And when your right to own a gun conflicts with society's right to walk the streets without taking a stray bullet, then as a society we have the right and the obligation to regulate when, how and if you're going to be allowed to own a gun. Now there are places in the world where that's not the case. There are places where nobody will legally question your gun ownership.

And I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:09 AM

55. "There's no such thing as an absolute right."

 

Agree wholeheartedly, never said there was ...

YOU (paraphrased) -- if you compare cars with guns then the same rules of possession/ownership should apply to each

Me (paraphrased) -- apples and oranges, one is a right, the other a privilege


It is more logical to compare gun ownership voting -- both rights under the Constitution, both limited by law (age, criminal convictions). Neither can be legally impinged by onerous regulation (taxes, complex registration, or -- is some states -- the possession of valid ID).

Should people be trained in the basics of and be knowledgeable about voting or shooting -- absolutely! I would submit that more people have been killed by bad voting than by firearms in our country -- the Civil War, Indian Wars, Vietnam War can all be attributed to bad decisions, ultimately in the hands of the voters.

Am I looking to create a gun-anarchy like Somalia? Of course not, Somalia doesn't have a surfeit of guns because it protects gun rights, it does so because it protects NO rights. It is a failed state where gun ownership is enforced by the clans -- and only clans have guns.

I wish you had the power to return me to Middle School. I would buy a shit ton of ammunition because it would be a better long-term investment than gold.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:38 AM

58. Fair enough...

If government has the right to limit and regulate one's right to vote, then it has the right to limit and regulate one's access to a firearm. The notion that because you have an right spelled out in the constitution, if therefor cannot be abridged, is a fantasy.

Note: The Constitution does not specifically include an affirmative right to vote -- it simply includes a series of clauses that specify people against whom discrimination is not permitted. Unless you live in Washington, DC, in which case you're just shit out of luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #58)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:05 PM

60. Correct -- about voting

 

But, there have been so many precedents striking down impingement/restrictions on voting I believe it is held in the same regard legally as if it were in the Bill of Rights.

Arguments that have been put forward here, such as a bullet tax or needs tests, are undoubtedly un-Constitutional and would not survive a SCOTUS challenge.

Bans on magazine size, cyclical rates, stock materials ... etc ... would not be un-Constitutional UNLESS they can be demonstrated be impinging on the basic right. That is where I believe the New York law will run into trouble. By banning magazines over 7 rounds (and other factors) it places a de facto ban a great number of standard and readily available firearms. Because it can be argued that rifles like the semi-automatic AK and AR are so common that to restrict them is a impingement on the 2A, I believe we will see this law in court again and again for a while to come.

But, I have a problem with those kind of bans other than their potential Constitutionality. I believe they will do nothing to do anything of the thing about which people are most upset -- illegal shootings. The time, energy, and political backlash it takes to pass an AWB would be better spent tightening up existing laws concerning background checks and creating a system that restricts access to firearms for those with a history of mental illness. AWBs and their like are simply a waste of time and a political liability, in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:31 PM

64. Not really...

A limit on magazine capacity is not an infringement upon your fundamental right to own an AR-15. It simply regulates how you can use it -- something that will undoubtedly stand up to a challenge in the Supreme Court (actually something like that is not likely to ever be heard by the court).

Beyond that, a ban on assault weapons (depending on its exact wording) is also likely to be upheld by the court. The City of Denver has an AWB that has been in place for twenty-three years, and multiple challenges have not overturned it. Remember also that even in the Heller case, Scalia's opinion clearly left open the ability to ban weapons other than handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:23 PM

73. If you point out the many differences, why the comparison in first place?

If you point out the many differences, why the comparison in first place?

I do realize it's wonderful comparison often made... then derided by the very same who bring it up in the first place when the comparison looks less than stellar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:05 AM

54. How many automobile deaths are caused by intentional means?How many by mass attacks?

Weakest argument the gunners have. It really shows they are losing the debate and are becoming more desperate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:01 PM

69. Why do you blame the law-abiding for the actions of criminals?

With the obvious exception of the school shootings, the rest of those were almost completely done by people who were already criminals. It is extremely rare for a law-abiding person to suddenly commit murder.

Those killings were already illegal. Do you think a murderer is going to be detered by yet another law? All your law will do is make law-abiding people into easier victims by disarming the law=abiding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:42 PM

84. Should be pinned. I thought I'd never get to the bottom of that graphic.

It gave time to let it sink in. Devastating.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:51 PM

7. How many were killed by criminals?

By criminals I mean someone with a prior violent conviction. Do you really think that violent criminals will willingly turn in their guns?

How many were suicides? Do you really think that taking a gun away from a suicidal person will stop them from using poison, rope, knives, cars, etc? Do you think that guns radiate a "suicide field effect" that make people off themselves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:02 AM

10. Dumbest. Post. Ever.

This is so fucking misguided I'm not really sure where to begin. Will a suicidal person not commit suicide if they don't have a loaded revolver in their hand? Probably not. Because EVERY OTHER METHOD is far less lethal and takes more time -- and at any point (say, while the person is taking the time to fashion a noose) they might decide to stick it out.

Here's a little fact to chew on, genius. Women are more than twice as likely than men to ATTEMPT suicide, but the rates for actual suicides is four times higher in men than in women. Know why? Come on. I'm sure you're a bright little fellow and know that answer already.

It's because men use FIREARMS as their primary method of choice and women use drug overdoses.

Any other gems of wisdom you'd care to share with the group?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:07 AM

27. Having a gun in your home makes it far more likely you will die. Period.

Having a gun in the house makes suicide over 5 times more likely. You're 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun (as Adam Lanza's mother was) than by an intruder's. You are unlikely to have an intruder. But you are very likely to get drunk, get depressed, get in a fight with someone in your house, or have your kid find your gun. That's how people get killed. Having a gun in the house makes it far more likely that you'll get your own head blown off.


http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/more-guns-more-suicides/
Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:53 AM

37. Actually not ...

 

"Having a gun in your home makes it far more likely you will die. Period."

-- it is only statistically more likely all factors aside from ownership being eliminated -- which in reality they never are.

For example, the likelihood of a person who no training, who purchase a weapon and leaves it on his coffee to play with while he's drunk harming himself -- even if he just drops it on his foot -- is much higher than that of a person who has significant firearms training, is knowledgeable about the weapons he owns and secures them correctly when not in use.

I feel very confident in my (and my family's) ability to safely and properly handle and secure firearms because of experience and training.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:59 AM

39. Link(s)? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:05 AM

40. It feels like Oleg paying us yet another visit. Just sayin'. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:35 PM

65. Who's Oleg? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:39 AM

42. Living with, or being a violent criminal is very dangerous.

Such studies always have one serious flaw. They never take into account whether the gun is possessed legally or illegally. They lump all gun owners as the same. Violent criminals commit almost all gun murders. Law-abiding people almost never commit murder as a first crime.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. People with violent tempers usually get into trouble with the law early and aquire a criminal record. They get the gun illegally and then do something bad with it. Then you come along and blame honest people for the actions of criminals.

Also, Kellerman counted a burglar's gun as being a gun in the home, even if the occupatants didn't keep one themselves. Don't you think that strongly biases his study? In The New England Journal of Medicine -- September 24, 1998 -- Volume 339, Number 13 Kellerman admits to that. There are numerous other flaws in his so-called study.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:55 AM

53. Adam Lanza was a "law-abiding citizen" before he blew the heads off 20 kids.

And there are other studies that come around that same 40 number. But nothing recent because the NRA shut down studies like that. Hopefully the President's executive orders will get new studies on board. But I agree, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior--like buying a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #53)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:46 PM

67. You may wish to rethink your statement.

But I agree, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior--like buying a gun.
Since there are about 80 milion legal gun owners in the nation and only a few thousand murderers per year, it is obvious that very, very few legal gun owners ever hurt anybody with their guns.

But being a violent criminal is highly indicitive that they will hurt someone in the future, and they are at the greatest likelyhood of gun violence if they have a gun. But they can't legally buy a gun so that is already against the law. Taking my guns away from me will have no effect on a violent criminal, except to make me an easy target.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #67)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:52 PM

68. Oh please. You OWNING guns makes you a target for criminals.

They want your guns. Not you.

And "legal gun owners" hurt people with guns all the time. Usually it is themselves via suicide or someone in their house.

Just by having a gun in the house, you are 5 times more likely to commit suicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #68)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:11 PM

70. The criminals doesn't know if I have guns or not.

In this part of Texas it is a safe bet that every house has a gun. So a criminal doesn't have to single my house out to find a gun.

When I am carrying a gun, it doesn't print so the criminal doesn't know that I have on on me. If he doesn't know that, he can't target me for the gun.

Guns don't radiate a kill-yourself mind control field. A person who has decided to commit sucide has that right. It is his choice.

Law-abiding people rarely shoot anybody on purpose, and only rarely by accident. Criminology is a well establish discipline and it is well known inside the field that murderers almost always have a past as a violent criminal. Outside the field people think of the murderer as a normal person who suddenly went evil. (Too many Agatha Christie novels, and bad TV shows.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #70)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:16 PM

71. Having a gun around makes otherwise treatable depression far more fatal.

I am a firm believer in people being able to end their life if there is no hope (terminally ill cancer patients in horrible pain, etc.), but it seems the vast majority of suicides are the tragic result of untreated mental illness or depression. Committing suicide due to mental illness or depression is not a choice--it is the mental illness consuming you. That is why having a gun in the house makes suicide over 5 times more likely.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/more-guns-more-suicides/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:22 PM

72. That is a chance for myself that I choose to accept.

I reject your attempts to control my life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #72)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:29 PM

74. No one is trying to control your life, unless guns are your life. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:14 PM

77. "Because EVERY OTHER METHOD is far less lethal"

Really? Even say jumping out of a 30 story window?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #77)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:39 PM

78. Yes.

Because you first have to drive to the nearest 30-story building (good luck if you live in South Dakota) and then you have to climb the stair or take the elevator to the top. At any point you can decide to not do it.

With a firearm in hand, once you make the decision and pull the trigger (two events that occur almost concurrently) there's nothing you can do to take it back. One moment of despair with a firearm and your life is over -- virtually every other method takes time -- time during which the person can decide to go on living.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:34 AM

21. Very bad arguments

Do you really think that violent criminals will willingly turn in their guns?

They don't have to. They use them. Then the gun is seized and destroyed.

You'll note that fully-automatic weapons are very rarely used in crimes today, despite how popular the "tommy gun" and other fully-automatic weapons were among criminals. That's because the vast majority of guns used by criminals start as legal weapons.

Do you really think that taking a gun away from a suicidal person will stop them from using poison, rope, knives, cars, etc?

Yes. In that it is much harder to successfully kill yourself using those methods compared to putting a gun to your head.

It's tricky to get the right amount of poison in you and avoid treatment long enough to die. Slashing your wrists with a knife is actually surprisingly ineffective - it's hard to bleed enough to die quickly enough to not be found or have second thoughts. And so on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:57 AM

38. "They use them. Then the gun is seized and destroyed..."

 

Assuming, of course, they are

caught, convicted, sentenced, and the firearm is actually located.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:07 AM

44. This isn't the first time we have done this kind of thing.

Again, we already did the exact same thing: We essentially banned fully-automatic weapons. People made the exact same argument, that criminals wouldn't be affected.

But it turns out almost all criminals get their weapons through sales of legal weapons. Thus fully-automatic weapons fell out of criminal use despite being incredibly popular among criminals before the ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:01 AM

9. Newtown...not Newton

The correct name of my town is Newtown....please fix the title...Newton is up in Massachusetts...

Sorry to nitpick but when you've had the press up here as much as we have making the same mistake over and over...it's nice when others get it right

Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:04 AM

11. You could drop the number of gun homicides by a huge precentage.

If we ended the war on drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:07 AM

13. Quite True

We were discussing this elsewhere today. I'm sure a quarter to a third of gun homicides have the drug trade as a "root cause"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:09 AM

15. According to the FBI about 80% of crime is attributed to gang violence.

I think a quarter to a third is a lowball.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:12 AM

17. I don't doubt it.

Even if we just de-criminalized marijuana, there would be a significant dent in crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:21 AM

19. I'm a little radical in my views on drugs.

I think that they should all be legal. However, not treated the same.

Pot = 100% legal and can be bought on my way home from work, no tracking, no hassle. With a good sized tax.

All others, 100% legal however only dispenced in a medical facility by a doctor. Here is my kicker... It should be free.

This I feel would have a greater effect on reducing the number of folks addicted to harder drugs. You will have the stigma of it requiring a visit medical facility, lessening the appeal to younger folks.

I believe that the Swiss have this model, or something close to it and it is working well.

A few decades and 1.5 trillion dollars since we declared a war on drugs, the exact same percentage of Americans are addicted today that were addicted back then. The war is not working.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:48 AM

51. If your goal is making drugs (or anything else) unattractive to the young ...

 

... make it mandatory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:21 AM

18. Many are suicides.

 

I'm sorry if this has already been posted, but it bears repeating.

IMO, a person has a right to do with their body as they please. Their body, their rights... to try and control what they do with it (or pretend that a determined individual will not simply choose a substitute method) is pretentious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:28 AM

20. See Post #7

And to sit by and watch a person who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol end his life (25% of male suicides are drunk at the time they take through own life) and not do anything to stop it is also pretentious -- and cruel beyond belief to those who mourn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:37 AM

23. Their body. Their choice.

 

Their personal choices shouldn't impact the rights of other people. There are plenty of other quick methods. There are other countries with much higher suicide rates than our own who seem to post those statistics just fine without easy access to guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:48 AM

26. The majority of the people who attempt suicide have second thoughts

Using a gun don't give them a chance to have second thoughts.

Poisons, knives, ropes and all the others give them a chance to change their mind. Yet they're still plenty lethal if they don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:29 AM

28. Yes, but having a gun around makes otherwise treatable depression far more fatal.

I am a firm believer in people being able to end their life if there is no hope (terminally ill cancer patients in horrible pain, etc.), but it seems the vast majority of suicides are the tragic result of untreated mental illness or depression. Committing suicide due to mental illness or depression is not a choice--it is the mental illness consuming you. Having a gun in the house makes suicide over 5 times more likely.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/more-guns-more-suicides/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:36 AM

22. Kick! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:40 AM

24. Shot and killed with a pellet gun?

Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Edited after some feedback from Meta (and with apologies to anyone who was offended; in retrospect the original was too flippant):

I was not aware that pellet guns were actually that dangerous; I thought that was an urban myth. I'm glad I know this now, and I'm sorry for that kid's family

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:33 AM

29. You could put an eye out!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:33 AM

30. I believe it

A kid in my school got shot in the eye with a pellet gun and nearly died, and lost his eye. Pellet went directly through the center of his eyeball into his brain. He fully recovered, except for the glass eye he needed after that. He was in the hospital for quite some time though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:23 PM

76. When I was a kid I had a friend almost die from a BB in the brain.

It entered behind his ear and lodged in his brain.

He missed almost a whole year of school, IIRC. I remember visiting him at home for the whole school year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:42 AM

43. Add four more in Atlanta area yesterday. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:43 AM

50. A visual that all should see.

Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:15 AM

56. They say

They Republicans say that the weirdos will just come in with knives and machetes. While that may be true, it is not going to be as easy to kill so many people in an amount of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:22 AM

57. These are "statistically insignificant" to the gun culture

fewer than have dies in cars, small price to pay for freedom, yada yada

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #57)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:40 AM

59. Actually...

A few years ago, gun deaths started exceeding deaths in auto accidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:15 PM

81. I like that Martin Bashier is doing a countdown

 

keeping it current.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sad-cafe (Reply #81)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:11 PM

85. It should be updated daily

Sort of like when Iran took the hostages in 1979 (I saw Argo last night), and night like kept a daily reminder of how many days they'd been held hostage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #85)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:34 PM

87. very good idea

 

very good

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread