Printable View
Well, I can now appreciate why all this gun toting is exciting. I just watched the film "COWBOY" starring Glenn Ford, and I have decided to go down to the pubs in Richmond tonight and buy a gun, then drive around Melbourne in my Volvo Cross Country tonight and start shooting up the town. YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If it is those "who use a gun to steal, maim or kill without any provocation that is the issue" then it is not "a couple of dozen mentally deranged individuals" who you need to address but the most basic building block of society itself - the family:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
FBI
53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...elatesmall.gif
The "random" attacker isn't the one you need to address as first priority, rather the people in your own household. By providing guns for "self-defence" you also provide the necessary means for people who live under the same roof to kill each other.
What's next? A husband and wife to have separate guns on either side of the bed so that they can defend themselves against each other? Sure the picture is stretched to incredulity with hyperbole but it illustrates the bulk of the problem.
You don't believe that it's a reasonable solution because you accept people being slain as a necessary trade-off to your "freedom".
Do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Not the Left wing, knee Jerk insult but the actual political and economic philosophy of Fascism?
Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty Read this and tell me who's political leanings is closer to real fascism.
Second Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information InstituteQuote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
And
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm
You cannot grasp that concept? Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Let me try again. Even simpler.
Healthcare costs money. If it costs money it ain't a right.
Guns cost money, don't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
The Second Amendment contains no such wording. Second, the link from Lect Law contains neither case law nor legal citation and is therefore merely opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Fail and Fail.
So do guns, Tony. So does ammunition. Your definition is blatantly nonsensical, but what else would we expect?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
How do you square with calling me a fascist the fact that you've called me a Communist in the past?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I hugely enjoy the fact that you expect me to be somehow offended by your comments, when in fact they are enormously hilarious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
First, I'd like to thank you for providing some data and not just relying on an emotion based argument. Whether we agree or disagree on the issue, the only way (IMO) to have any sort of mature, constructive dialog is by relying on valid data... not emotions. I am a little bit confused by the bar chart/table vs. the pie chart though. Either I'm not reading something right or they don't agree with each other. By the pie chart, the combination of "Family" and "Other Known" seems to equal 43.6%, while the combination of "Stranger" and "Unknown" equals 56.4% - giving a total distribution of 100%. I'm not sure where the "53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members" is coming from.
But whatever the correct figures are, it doesn't seem that any of the categories is statistically insignificant. And comparing this data to the Dept. of Justice data that I linked previously, I wonder how many of these "known" or "family member" incidents involved people who were legally prohibited from owning firearms because of prior criminal convictions or being judged mentally defective? In the United States, it is illegal for a person convicted of even misdemeanor domestic assault to own or possess a firearm. So going a bit deeper into the two data sets, I just wonder what we're truly seeing. I'm not arguing that it's worse (or better) to be shot by a stranger vs. a family member. But if in either case, the shooter is already under a legal prohibition from owning a firearm, I'm not quite clear on how a new law could prevent that shooting - I mean, there's already a "ban" that applies to those people, yes? From the standpoint of what is realistic, reasonable and practical, what new legal mechanism would be instituted that would find and confiscate firearms that would be any better than what we have now?
With all due respect to those who are opposed to or don't understand private firearms ownership in the United States, I have yet to hear anything plausible and practical on how whatever plan they have would be executed and accomplished. How would new words on new pieces of paper work any better than the old words on the old pieces of paper... that apparently aren't effective enough now??? With these new words on new pieces of paper, will all of the criminals, strangers, as well as violent family members, suddenly turn in their firearms? That seems to be a rather fantastic expectation, IMO. So... what would be the practical mechanism for confiscating firearms if this proposed ban on private firearms ownership was enacted in the United States? Honest question... really.
Something else I want to look at when I have some time: from something I read years ago, a large percentage of rapes, assaults and property crimes are also committed by people known to the victim. Not that it really affects what we're talking about here (in general), but the issue of crime seems to not just be one of "stranger danger". If the point being made relates to (true) spontaneous "crimes of passion," then I understand. But the data presented here doesn't give us any read on how frequent that is. And if the victim/assailant relationship matters here, if compared to other crimes, would we consider say, a marital or date rape as not being as bad (or worse) as a rape committed by a stranger? Maybe some would. In my state, up until the 1980's (I believe) there was no such (legal) thing as "marital rape" - a husband had the right to have sex with his wife whenever he wanted to. Though most don't, some people still believe that. So without a deeper dive into the data, I'm not sure what the relationship of the victim to the assailant really tells us. We just need to know more about the data to arrive at any sort of conclusion, IMO.