HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Only a real coward would ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:08 PM

Only a real coward would want to use the kind of guns the NRA says are for hunting. nt

87 replies, 8024 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 Only a real coward would want to use the kind of guns the NRA says are for hunting. nt (Original post)
kelliekat44 Jan 2013 OP
jody Jan 2013 #1
spanone Jan 2013 #2
jody Jan 2013 #4
neverforget Jan 2013 #12
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #6
white_wolf Jan 2013 #9
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #3
jody Jan 2013 #5
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #11
Berserker Jan 2013 #10
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #14
hack89 Jan 2013 #48
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #49
hack89 Jan 2013 #52
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #57
hack89 Jan 2013 #58
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #59
hack89 Jan 2013 #60
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #61
hack89 Jan 2013 #62
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #63
hack89 Jan 2013 #65
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #66
hack89 Jan 2013 #67
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #68
hack89 Jan 2013 #69
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #70
hack89 Jan 2013 #71
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #72
hack89 Jan 2013 #73
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #74
hack89 Jan 2013 #75
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #80
hack89 Jan 2013 #81
jody Jan 2013 #85
duhneece Jan 2013 #78
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #19
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #22
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #43
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #44
madokie Jan 2013 #47
Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #50
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #51
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #7
white_wolf Jan 2013 #8
jody Jan 2013 #13
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #16
jody Jan 2013 #23
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #24
jody Jan 2013 #26
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #31
jody Jan 2013 #34
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #40
jody Jan 2013 #84
madinmaryland Jan 2013 #15
Occulus Jan 2013 #17
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #53
rrneck Jan 2013 #64
jmg257 Jan 2013 #18
-..__... Jan 2013 #20
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #25
-..__... Jan 2013 #27
dionysus Jan 2013 #29
-..__... Jan 2013 #33
JTFrog Jan 2013 #86
dionysus Jan 2013 #87
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #32
-..__... Jan 2013 #35
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #36
-..__... Jan 2013 #37
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #39
-..__... Jan 2013 #41
Auntie Bush Jan 2013 #21
MrSlayer Jan 2013 #28
cliffordu Jan 2013 #30
Marinedem Jan 2013 #38
former-republican Jan 2013 #42
flvegan Jan 2013 #45
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #46
Atman Jan 2013 #54
Pholus Jan 2013 #55
duhneece Jan 2013 #83
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #56
samsingh Jan 2013 #76
and-justice-for-all Jan 2013 #77
X_Digger Jan 2013 #79
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #82

Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:21 PM

1. Apparently you hate guns. Do you believe they create crime? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:23 PM

2. they certainly facilitate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:25 PM

4. OK but what guns do you hate and why? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:30 PM

12. What guns do you love and why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:26 PM

6. And they can prevent it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:27 PM

9. Sure they can, but I'm betting they enable as many, if not more, than they stop. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:25 PM

3. I think guns are capable of creating crime and in some cases they do

As a another poster just said, guns are crime facilitators.

The young lady who just shot and killed her brother trying to take a picture after a night of drinking, was a crime committed? If there was no gun there would the young man now be dead from a gunshot wound to the head?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:26 PM

5. OK but what guns do you hate and why? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:29 PM

11. I don't hate any inanimate object and try not to hate anyone

I don't even hate nuclear weapons, I think they may well have forestalled a third World War even more destructive than the last two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:28 PM

10. I think

 

Condoms are capable of creating rape and in some cases they do.
As a another poster just said, Condoms are crime facilitators.

Now that sounds just as stupid as your reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berserker (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:31 PM

14. Rapists wear condoms?

The young woman who just shot her brother in the head while he was taking pictures, was a crime committed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:11 AM

48. How else do they not leave DNA evidence?

yes - it is now common for rapist to use condoms. After all, they watch CSI like the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #48)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:44 AM

49. So condoms make negligent rape common?

Like guns make negligent manslaughter common?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #49)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:54 AM

52. They makes it easier for those predisposed to rape or kill

which is why the focus needs to be on people and their behavior, not inanimate objects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #52)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:35 AM

57. So the young woman was predisposed to kill her brother?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #57)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:42 AM

58. I distinguish between crimes and accidents

by your logic there are many things that need to be banned - starting with cars.

At some point it is not society's job to protect people from their own irresponsibility or idiocy.

Lets focus on criminal violence - it is a much smaller group of people and there is much less controversy involved in going after them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #58)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:58 AM

59. Negligent manslaughter carries no criminal penalties?

If something carries criminal penalties then it is a crime, QED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #59)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:04 AM

60. And there are many things that can kill when used in a negligent manner.

Cars and alcohol being two common ones. Household chemicals are particularly deadly to young children.

I was referring to habitual criminals - those with records of criminal violence. Take Chicago for example - their recent spike in gun deaths has everything to do with gang violence. Lets fix the big problems first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:20 AM

61. Nuclear weapons used negligently can kill

By your reasoning individuals should not be deterred from having nuclear weapons.

And also by your reasoning the only person alcohol kills negligently is someone who drinks too much of it, it's rather unlikely that you are going to negligently kill someone with your bare hands.

Cars are actually amazingly safe considering how much we use them and how badly a lot of us do it, you would have to drive at 60mph 24/7/365 for something like 70 years in order to have a fifty percent chance of dying in a car crash.

If you spent the same amount of time with everyone in the public shooting at a sustained rate for 24/7/365 there would be vastly more casualties than from cars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #61)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:46 AM

62. Look at just accidental gun deaths

and the problem is significantly diminished.

Looking at the causes of death due to unintentional injuries from 1999 to 2007, the CDC has firearms at number 14 - responsible for 0.7% of the total.

Car accidents accounted for 39%
Poisoning 18%
Falls 16%
Suffocation 4.6%
Drowning 3.1%


http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=ARH6hbOvM52&_program=wisqars.details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=1&age2=85&agegp=1-85&deaths=978574&_debug=0&lcdfmt=customðnicty=0&ranking=10&deathtle=Death

it's rather unlikely that you are going to negligently kill someone with your bare hands.


Hands and feet kill more people than rifles so actually it is very likely. A fight gets out of hand and a fatal blow is struck.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls


Want to reduce gun deaths? Hammer habitual violent criminals to reduce crime and provide mental health care to reduce suicides. Quite fixating on objects and concentrate on root causes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #62)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:54 AM

63. You still are trying desperately to equate non negligent acts with negligent ones

If you kill someone in a fight by deliberately striking them it's not a negligent act.

Nuclear weapons have killed far fewer people than guns, why are they not allowed to be owned by the public?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #63)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:05 AM

65. Is there such a thing as a non-negligent gun accident that kills someone?

accidental deaths, negligent or not, are not grounds to severely restrict guns - it does not rise to a sufficient threshold to warrant it.

The majority of gun deaths are due to criminal acts or suicides - those are the problems to be addressed.

There are more negligent deaths cause by automobiles then guns - by orders of magnitude. If you want to reduce accidental deaths perhaps traffic safety would be a better cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #65)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:11 AM

66. Negligent nuclear weapons use has never killed anyone

Nuclear weapons are "arms" why are nuclear weapons banned from possession by the general public?

You still haven't answered that question.

Cars get used for their intended purpose many orders of magnitude more than guns get used for their intended purpose, I can hear cars 24/7 at my location but gunfire is not that common although I did hear some law abiding gun owners firing theirs on New Year's Eve, I hope they were using an approved bullet stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #66)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:16 AM

67. The issue with nukes is not negligent use - it is malicious deliberate use. Just like with guns. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #67)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:22 AM

68. I already pointed out that nuclear weapons have killed far fewer people than guns

Are you saying that nuclear weapons make it too easy to kill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #68)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:33 AM

69. When a single gun can kill ten million people in a second let me know.

Don't you think that the potential to kill tens of millions in a single act puts nukes in a different category?

I find your line of argument puzzling - do you really think that equating guns with nuclear weapons is really going to resonate with the public? Most people can intuitively understand why nuclear weapons must be tightly control. You seem to have an issue with that logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #69)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:45 AM

70. Only a matter of degree and not of kind between guns and nukes

I'm just trying to figure out what the accepted number of dead in one incident is, obviously 26 is too low and you appear to be arguing tens of millions is too many.

I suppose you could kill 26 people at one time with a hand grenade although it would probably be unlikely and yet hand grenades are illegal for the general public to own despite the fact that they are "arms".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #70)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:52 AM

71. It is very much a matter of kind

the 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms. The definition of arms has never included crew served weapons, ordnance such as cannons or explosive devices.

The American right to keep and bear arms has a history that goes back to the British Bill of Rights of 1689. The dividing line between what constitutes arms and what doesn't is pretty clear and is backed by centuries of case and common law.

Nuclear weapons are not covered by the 2A. Guns are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #71)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:07 PM

72. Hand grenades are not crew served weapons and nukes don't have to be

I'm trying to figure out what the socially unacceptable level of mass slaughter is.

You don't seem to be of much help in that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #72)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:14 PM

73. You will always pick a number that justifies draconian gun control laws

so why bother playing silly games?

The issue is not what a socially unacceptable level of mass slaughter is. The issue is what workable solutions exist that are legal and constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #73)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:23 PM

74. And you will always pick a number that allows for casual mass slaughter

See how that works?

And you still have not addressed the issue of hand grenades.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #74)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:25 PM

75. Hand grenades are not protected by the 2A

and can therefore be tightly controlled. There is no constitutionally protected use for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #75)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:29 PM

80. The Constitution does not mention "guns", it uses the more general term "arms"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #80)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:32 PM

81. We have already discussed this

The 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms. The definition of arms has never included crew served weapons, ordnance such as cannons or explosive devices.

The American right to keep and bear arms has a history that goes back to the British Bill of Rights of 1689. The dividing line between what constitutes arms and what doesn't is pretty clear and is backed by centuries of case and common law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #80)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:40 PM

85. Agree and the Heller opinion said:

 

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berserker (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:28 PM

78. Condoms were invented to prevent unwanted pregnancy

Guns destroy...paper targets, cans..and some were designed to kill many human beings as quickly as possible.

Two different intentions entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:38 PM

19. So you hate all guns? Of every kind? Because that lady killed her brother with one? How 'bout knives

Lots of people kill other people with knives. So you don't have knives in your house, do you? They facilitate crimes.

I watch those true crime stories a lot. A lot of people are killed with knives (butcher and small ones, incl. dinner knives). Knives in the head, in the eyes, in the chest, in the guts, in the back, slit the throat, you name it. It's apparently the tool of choice for many killers. And handy, too.

How about poisons? Some people kill other people with poisons. These are more sophisticated killers. Nurses, people familiar with gardening chemicals, women (women killers use poison a lot of times, according to the true crime shows I've seen). So...ban all poisons?

How about hands, tire irons, and cars? That young woman who was just raped and murdered in India by several men was beaten up, raped, and her body dumped out of the bus, and then they drove over her in a car. They also used a tire iron to beat her. This crime was facilitated by (1) males, (2) hands, (3) tire iron, and (4) car.

Bats are rarer, but are nonetheless used more often than you'd think. Should bats be banned? Or just metal bats? They facilitate crime sometimes.

Strangulation is often used by thrill killers. It's up close and personal. But that's the "hands" category mentioned above. They facilitated those crimes.

Cords and ropes are sometimes used to strangle people. The Boston Strangler used nylons sometimes. Should those items be banned?

Wow, there are quite a few items we have to ban, in order to prevent murder! But if we ban these things, there will be no murder.

Silly, huh? Yes, it is. That's because we can't stop murder, or even mass murder. The best we can do is ban those items that are used most often for mass murder. That does not include all guns or knives or cords or ropes. Just the assault weapons, those high count mags, and such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:41 PM

22. If the gun wasn't there, would the young man now be dead of a gunshot wound inflicted by his sister?

In that respect the gun facilitated the crime of negligent manslaughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:55 AM

43. If the kitchen knives weren't there, would that teen's mother still be alive?

The teen daughter and her boyfriend stabbed Mother numerous times. Mother objected to their relationship. They used what was handy. And they planned it. They could have gotten a gun. But their weapon of choice was the knife. That's apparently very common.

Knives are even used in mass murders. Check out Japan....man entered school and stabbed a lot of children. 8 died, others seriously wounded.

Poisons are used in mass killings, if you include saran gas and things like that. Japan incidents.

Knives facilitate crimes, no doubt about it. They've been used to murder since the knife was invented. A knife's purpose is to cut and stab, after all. It worked out so great, that they made them bigger and longer and called them swords.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #43)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:52 AM

44. English? Do you speak it?

Negligence has a specific meaning, none of the things you mentioned are negligent.

And you still didn't answer my question, would the woman's brother not have had his head blown apart if the gun had not been there?

I don't know what it is about guns that makes people post stupid stuff but you are defending against a completely different point than the one I'm making.

My guess is that's because you have no defense against the point I'm making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:22 AM

47. NO doubt about that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:47 AM

50. How does a gun "create" crime?

I don't own a gun and could care less but that does't make any sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #50)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:52 AM

51. Negligent manslaughter is not a crime?

I already pointed out that the woman who shot her brother in Phoenix would not have done so without a gun being present.

The gun "created" the crime in this instance, same people doing the same drunk photos minus the gun and the young man would be alive today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:26 PM

7. And you love 'em

More gunz please and no pesky regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:26 PM

8. That's a huge stretch.

The poster may not hate all guns. They may be fine with handguns, for instance. Maybe they do hate guns, but you certainly can't infer that from their post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:30 PM

13. I can infer anything I wish. OP author can reply or not. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:32 PM

16. And the rest of us are free to point and laugh when you make a laughable inference



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:42 PM

23. At least readers know "3. I think guns are capable of creating crime". FBI reports for 2010

 

MURDERS by weapon
1,704 Knives or cutting instruments
745 Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)
540 Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)
358 Rifles

Do you believe those other weapons are capable of creating crime?

Since they are used more often, don't you want to ban them also to be consistent in your logic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:44 PM

24. This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for shooting, this is for fun

Gun refers to pistols even more than it does rifles.

You are smarter than this, I've read enough of your posts to know you're probably smarter than I am.

So stop making stupid arguments, please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:53 PM

26. Fumesucker OP linked guns with hunting. True I and others do use handguns for hunting but that's a

 

minority of hunters.

OP was almost certainly talking about rifles since those are the ones with large magazines and scary looking things like a bayonet lug, or made from composites.

Fact is handguns were used in 6,009 of the total12,996 homicides in 2010.

People who want to ban or control firearms undefined will fail.

If they take the time to learn the language of violent crime and what weapons are used to murder, then they just might common ground with many pro-RKBA Democrats and seek solutions that make it more difficult to get firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:10 PM

31. I know that violence including gun crime has been declining steadily for some time now

I also know there's strong evidence that links this decline to a lowering of lead levels in our environment, largely but not entirely due to tetra-ethyl lead being banned by law.

You accused me of hating guns, I don't hate any inanimate object and I try with varying degrees of success not to hate any person either.

I have decided upon reflection over the last few weeks of debate that since a complete gun ban is unworkable in the USA then I'm not in favor of that, you can have anything you can afford to buy and shoot with some caveats.

What I want to see is your gun if you are in public, no more concealed carry, I want be able to remove myself from the vicinity of armed persons in public places. I want licensing and insurance for use *or* criminal misuse of the gun, including if the weapon is stolen and used to commit a crime and the owner can be shown negligent in securing it. Gun licensing records should be searchable online by the public.

I also want to see heavy mandatory penalties for carrying a concealed gun.

That's really my bottom line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:21 PM

34. OK, we can concentrate on handguns since they are used in about 50% of murders.

 

Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Next 44% of murders are committed by people who know each other.

Murder Circumstances by Relationship, 2010, Total 12,996

- Of which 5,657 (43.5%) by Husband, Wife, Mother, Father, Son, Daughter, Brother, Sister, Other family, Acquaintance, Friend, Boyfriend, Girlfriend, Neighbor, Employee, Employer,

- Of which 7,339 (56.5%) by Stranger, Unknown

Seems to me the first group (43.5%) may be amenable to one type solution and the second group (56.5%) another.

Don't know because I'm not a criminologist but I've enough experience to expect major problems that appear to be intractable can be solved in small pieces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:03 AM

40. I'm reminded of an old Yakov Smirnoff joke

In Soviet Russia was dog eat dog.

In America is other way around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:37 PM

84. LOL those who want to ban all firearms attack those who want no bans and vice versa.

 

The media just want to keep the fight going and sometimes publishes outright lies or carefully distorted truths.

I don't believe one set of federal laws will satisfy all needs, e.g. Wyoming's 600k citizens and crime ridden Chicago (2.7 million) and Detroit (700k) citizens.

I'm beginning to understand the debate about the upper limit on a "republic" that our Constitution promises "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

I've read a number of papers that suggest 200k might be the upper limit of a population that can self-govern a republic as a democracy.

FBI UCR shows violent crime rates go up rapidly as metro population increases, see http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl16.xls

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:32 PM

15. Heh! The gun coward rings in!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:33 PM

17. Bullshit premise.

Deflection and redirection.

In other words, troll tactics.

Jury: I'm speaking to the post, not the poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:55 AM

53. Yes I know they create crime by making evil things possible, even glamorous in a sick way

 

Gun pushers always say the bad guys could use other means but they almost always seem to use guns. Do they bring a gun and bomb? Not usually they bring multiple guns and multiple gun clips.

Gun porn creates an atmosphere of glamour to use these killing instruments. That's why these wackjobs are always posing with their guns like Rambo or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #53)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:04 AM

64. Looks like an NRA talking point to me.

Blame the "culture". If it's not video games, it's glamorizing guns. Just another day in the trenches of the culture wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:35 PM

18. Why?? Wouldn't much depend on what they want to use them for?

Why do you think such a thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:40 PM

20. Want to see pics of my penis?

 

I'm part Irish, so be prepared to be disappointed (or elated depending on where your head is at).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:45 PM

25. Please proceed, governor n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #25)


Response to -..__... (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:07 PM

29. that's fucked up you'd post that man....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:15 PM

33. Relax... "man"...

 

no hamsters were harmed or exploited during that photo shoot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:15 AM

86. Well that POS got shown the door.

Finally.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #86)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:17 AM

87. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:14 PM

32. Mitt? Is that you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:22 PM

35. The magic underwear chaffs my shaft.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:30 PM

36. You sure that's not caused by the pistols in your pockets?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to -..__... (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:54 PM

39. Well, in your case it wouldn't make all that much difference anyway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:10 AM

41. Aim small... miss small.

 

I've easily been spending more time online than on the range or bedroom lately, but it's like riding a bicycle... once you learn how, you never forget.

That reminds me... I have to get back to the "range" more often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:40 PM

21. They must be afraid of getting gored by a buck, moose or wild hog!

Someone that scared has no business even with a bee bee gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:06 PM

28. Nonsense.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:08 PM

30. WTF kind of guns are those?

Please describe in detail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:45 PM

38. Clearly a coward.

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Reply #38)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:18 AM

42. Don't worry , most won't even know or care who he is .

 

Mark gave him that rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:58 AM

45. No, a real coward bases it all in hunting.

Not all of them, mind you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:11 AM

46. I've always said that if you want to impress with your hunting prowess,

 

go out and bring back that deer with nothing but a knife.

There is no sport in shooting an animal, if you need to eat, go ahead and shoot it. But please quit pretending you're doing anything but slaughtering a helpless animal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:58 AM

54. I am stupider for having read this thread.

I don't believe we cannot regulate guns. We "regulate" our free speech rights, we "regulate" our freedoms in many, many practical ways with which very few, if anyone, on this thread would argue (licensing and training for driving automobiles, special license to drive a tractor trailer, etc). So why are military weapons okay in the hands of untrained, unlicensed civilians? I'm tired of the stupidity. We license PETS for fuck sake! I don't think America will collapse because we can't freely purchase military weapons at the civic center gun show. Get serious, people...it's a serious problem, and IDIOTS are framing the debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #54)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:02 AM

55. Very well said! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #54)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:34 PM

83. I'm only replying because I want reply

Handy. It is eloquent and perfect. Thank you. I am smarter for reading this thread!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:03 AM

56. About 80% of gun owners don't hunt. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:25 PM

76. coward or worse

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:27 PM

77. I find hunting with high powered weapons to be cowardice too..

use a spear or a bow and arrow, now that is hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to and-justice-for-all (Reply #77)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:29 PM

79. You and your fancy bows and arrows..

If you're not chasing down the game and killing it with a flint knife, you're a coward!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:33 PM

82. How is it cowardly? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread