Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
requested by David

Posted by fancifowl 5Pa (My Page) on
Sun, Mar 31, 13 at 23:20

One afternoon a 37 year old mother of 2 heard a knock at her door The knocking became persistant and the door bell rang. The woman called her husband who advised her to get her .38 revolver, hide and call 911. She hid in the attic but the man broke in and found them in hiding. She shot the man who was expected to survive. Atlanta Journal, Loganville, Ga. 1/5/13


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: requested by David #2

Bryan Lee, owner of the Almond Avenue Pharmacy, had no choice but to rire his pistol when a 31 yr old man entered his store firing a gun. He fired multiple rounds striking Lees mother, Sophie in the leg. Bryan returned fire causing the man to flee. he collapsed a block away and died in the hospital. The fresno Bee, Madera, Ca. 1/22/13

Try to get a bunch up tomorrow after the trip to the eye doctor.


 o
RE: requested by David

Self serving, meaningless.

All this regurgitation will not hold back the tide of change as change is ever present and always has been.

If you cant adapt, expect to get left behind.


 o
RE: requested by David

"Self serving, meaningless."

I disagree with your judgment. I understand that the examples cited serve to demonstrate that being able to defend one's own with a firearm can make a difference in a positive way for the victims, thereby bolstering Fanci's point that he believes that it is important to be able to do so.

In the two examples both times would-be victims were definitely self-serving in their desire to protect trhemselves and their own.

But "meaningless?"


 o
RE: requested by David

If I thought it was useful, I'd hunt up an equal number of mistaken shootings following similar scenarios. But a waste of time and time for SOB.


 o
RE: requested by David

"Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts. "
===========
Just strollin' on by...

Here is a link that might be useful: Analysis of the Kellerman study


 o
RE: requested by David

You'll definitely put your eye out...


 o
RE: requested by David

I think the gunfundies faithfully flood the ether with these lobbyist memos stories to try and cover up the gun violence stories.


 o
RE: requested by David

Just ask the TX DA and his wife about how well carrying a gun works for home protection. Oh....you can't. They're dead.


 o
RE: requested by David

For every "justified" case of having a gun, how many people are senselessly killed?


 o
RE: requested by David

"Self serving, meaningless."

Nah. David asked for information and it was provided. David had no idea how to access that kind of information for himself. That wouldn't be the case, if his sources did more reporting and less censoring.

"Just ask the TX DA and his wife about how well carrying a gun works for home protection. Oh....you can't. They're dead."

You know that he was "carrying a gun" when he and his wife were murdered inside their home? I'm thinking not.

David...check out this link.

Here is a link that might be useful: the gun wire


 o
RE: requested by David

I ran across the name, Kellermann, when I was looking at Nik's link in the White Men and Guns thread. (edited to say that Kellermann's name is not in Nik's link. Nik's link led me to the article I mention below.)

Kellermann's "research" seems to be full of holes. (Where's Factotem when we need him/her?) The Wikipedia article about him seems to be mostly about how flawed this "research" was.

"While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are “43 times more likely” to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher."


Lott, the author in Nik's link, mentions the flawed report in this article that I linked in the other thread.

In the Wikipedia article, this article was in the references. I didn't really read it. I got the idea though.

Even lil ole me can see some very serious holes. So many that I won't even get started. I got work to do around here.

Hay

This post was edited by haydayhayday on Mon, Apr 1, 13 at 9:16


 o
Was it HIS gun that killed him?

"Just ask the TX DA and his wife about how well carrying a gun works for home protection. Oh....you can't. They're dead."

Chalk one up for Kellermann. Using his methodology, the presence of the gun in his house actually contributed to his death.

Where, oh where, is Factotem? I don't have time for this.

Hay


 o
RE: requested by David

Why this is terrible! Flawed research and no Facto to come to Hay-less' side to take down Kellermann on behalf of the Truth.


 o
RE: requested by David

You can tell I'm on to something when Marshall comes after me.

I've been on a real winning streak here lately.

Instant acknowledgement.

We won't be needing your services on this after all, Factotem. Stand by.

Hay


 o
RE: requested by David

Haymuch, we love your wonderfully creative "look at me" postings, this one a lot more reader-friendly that the "smarter monkey" ones.


 o
RE: requested by David

Try not to take it personally, Marshall.

It's good to know our place in the universe.

Can we get back to the subject now? I love talking about me, but even I get tired of it after a while.

Hay


 o
RE: requested by David

You are a handsome primatel, Hay. I see a family resemblence afterall. :)


 o
RE: requested by David

"Just ask the TX DA and his wife about how well carrying a gun works for home protection. Oh....you can't. They're dead."

Marshall...How do you know the prosecutor was carrying inside his home?


 o
RE: requested by David

Mylab, this is probably the one area in which agreement will not be forthcoming... but I see no valid reason to adapt by accepting the fear being pushed through media and other sources in a specific campaign where this issue is concerned.

Our forefathers, having lived through a time of great imperiousness, had the brilliant foresight to create a governing body operating for the people, by the people... and crafted documents with that idea in mind containing concepts that give us all certain rights and freedoms... knowing full well that with such rights and freedoms come great responsibility... for the specific purpose of not reliving future tyranny and injustice.

We exercise these rights every day when we log on to this very forum and express our thoughts and opinions. We do so knowing full well that someone else may write something that upsets us, or angers us, or that we completely disagree with... but we accept that as part of our freedom to speak out.

At the extreme, there are people who use words and modern media to spread ideas of hate, bigotry, and other negatives that we might find absolutely heinous. But would we abolish or give up our freedom to speak out just because some people abuse that right, or because media has changed since the Bill of Rights was written and accepted as law of the land? No, we wouldn't... we value our rights very much.

I own firearms, knowing full well that with such ownership and use come great responsibility. I accept that responsibility, and I also acknowledge the fact that there will be those persons who misuse and abuse the right to own firearms, namely criminals. I certainly am not willing to give up that right just because today's media has launched a campaign instilling fear and misinformation, and I don't think it prudent to change that right just because modern firearms don't resemble those of yesteryear... or because there is a minority within our population that does not respect such rights... or because our Justice system cannot seem to enforce the laws that have been written.

I happen to think, much like my forefathers, that the right to bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state, along with other uses. Once this right is taken, chipped away at slowly for a variety of invented reasons, not all of them logical, the people will no longer hold the power to maintain that security.

I'm not really willing to give up any of the rights our forefathers gave us... knowing full well that some bad always comes along with the good.

Statistically speaking, restriction of firearm ownership through various laws enacted over the years has not been a successful endeavor to eradicate violent crime.

The only legality that seems to have had any significant advantage in reducing violent crime is one that imposes automatic and stiffer sentencing for criminals that actually commit violent crime using firearms.

However, such legislation does place a higher burden upon the Justice system, and does come with a cost as those criminals must be housed for longer periods of time.

Conversely, most proposed or enacted restrictions have had a majority effect on those law abiding citizens, or have not met their intended goals.

The studies I cite from are not current to date, per se', but are not old enough to have any bearing on the facts contained therein.

The conclusion I have drawn from everything I have read and experienced is that, in short, laws only work if all of society abides by them.

Legislation that has the effect of punishing law abiding citizens, while those who would commit violent crimes continue to do so regardless of legislation, are not logical, reasonable, nor are they effective. They completely miss the intended mark.

To place focus upon the firearm as the only means of violent or other death within any nation, and to completely ignore every other statistic on death, violent or otherwise, is to have only one piece of a puzzle in hand. Without the other pieces, a full picture cannot emerge.

We don't ban alcohol because of its role in violent death, do we? No. And we are not including that statistic in the argument of legislating violent crime or violent death.

We have legislation for the purchase and use of alcohol, but the whole of society does not deem it prudent to follow such laws. As a result, thousands and thousands of persons die annually.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 32,885 people died in traffic crashes in 2010 in the United States, including an estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths of that year. That was in 2010, and that's a huge number of what amounts to violent death.

Those who are against the ownership of firearms, or the restriction thereof in the form of various legislation do not seem to understand that such laws give a false sense of security, nor do they want to look at the whole picture of violent and other types of death as inclusive in any sort of statistical argument.

One cannot seriously assign cause to an inanimate object, or ignore other social issues with the same outcome, if one is to participate in a serious discussion without appearing to have fallen victim to media hype, or without appearing to view such an issue with tunnel vision... in my opinion.

As far as I can tell, all of the recent threads on gun violence have two things in common... 1) they are in knee jerk reaction to media hype... 2) they are statistically specious.



Here is a link that might be useful: Statistically Speaking...


 o
RE: requested by David

Nik:

"Marshall...How do you know the prosecutor was carrying inside his home?

I think I saw somewhere that the DA, or whoever it was, had bought a gun AFTER his assistant, or whoever, had been shot.

Which ties in with one of the statements by Lott in one of the the links I gave up above about Kellermann's flawed "research".

"The finding that those who are more likely to own guns suffer a higher homicide rate makes us ask: why were they more likely to own guns? Could it be that they were at greater risk of being attacked?

....

The fact that all or virtually all the homicide victims died from a weapon brought into their home by an intruder makes this all the more plausible."

Hay

This post was edited by haydayhayday on Mon, Apr 1, 13 at 11:05


 o
RE: requested by David

See, Hay-mind came to save me from excessive scrutiny by nika. (PS, I wasn't aware that I even commented on the DA and wife murders, much less speculated about the extend of self-protecting armory at hand in the home.)


 o
RE: requested by David

Ask the Assistant DA who was gunned down near his office in Texas this month. Ask the DA who was armed to the teeth and his wife how well that gun protected them. The DA said in a news conference that he would be armed and advised others since his assistant was gunned down. He also had 24 hour armed guard protection and yet....Ask the head of Colorado prison system who was shot dead opening his door.


 o
RE: requested by David

I happen to think, much like my forefathers, that the right to bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state, along with other uses. Once this right is taken, chipped away at slowly for a variety of invented reasons, not all of them logical, the people will no longer hold the power to maintain that security.
I'm not really willing to give up any of the rights our forefathers gave us... knowing full well that some bad always comes along with the good.

You're going Calamity Jane on me. (that's not all bad, but the gun thing...) Here, here. The Right to carry weapons is not absolute. Reasonable restrictions on manufacture and distribution of military style weapons that have little or no benefit to our society would be Constitutional and will be when we finally get reasonable reforms. So too will universal background checks.
I refer you to this line from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008):
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." - Antonin Scalia

Statistically speaking, restriction of firearm ownership through various laws enacted over the years has not been a successful endeavor to eradicate violent crime.

How about the banning of automatic weapons in the 1934 National Firearms Act? Eventually that helped to get rid of the machine guns used by Capone and other gangs. We now have different problems spanning the gamut from inner city gun violence to mass murders in theaters, malls and in schools, the kind that that slaughtered 20 Kindergarten kids.. and none of this could have been contemplated by the "forefathers."

In any case this is a weak NRA argument similar to their argument that states that since there are so many weapons in existence why regulate the manufacture and distribution of the most dangerous military style assault weapons now?

There is nothing unconstitutional or wrong with reasonable limitations on gun ownership and a reasonable background check to purchase weapons and massive quantities of ammunition. We are justified in regulating firearm ownership and preventing some from owning a weapon including those who are not qualified to own guns, the mentally ill, those who have a history of domestic abuse and violence, and those who might be planning to commit crime by seeking to buy large quantities of guns and ammunition in a short period of time.

There is another point that is never addressed by gun zealots yet is brought up frequently by Americans who do not own weapons. That is our basic rights to peace and tranquility, our freedom to gather and to assemble peacefully (i.e., the last Gabby Giffords Congressmen on your corner event) , including the freedom to not be intimidated or threatened by civilians who own the most dangerous weapons or brazenly carry them to intimidate.

You continue to try to confuse rather than convince. Reasonable laws like background checks and a ban on military style weapons that can mow down a crowd of kids in two minutes have nothing to do with abridging your rights to your weapons and your lawful use of them. It's apples and oranges yet you continue to obfuscate and confuse the two.

I think the pro-gunners know that while they may win short term legislative victories and can obstruct legislation, gun violence will only get worse unless we start doing something to change it, including ending the manufacture of the most dangerous weapons for civilian use and establishing sensible background checks. It's going to happen.


 o
RE: requested by David

For six decades US District Courts used the United States vs. Miller decision as the standard which they used to determine 2nd Amendment rights. Challenges had not even reached the Supreme Court until the 1990's when that court became conservative enough and activist enough to begin a string of decisions that would effectively blunt and then dismantle US vs. Miller.

One of the cited premises (and consequent decisions) of US vs. Miller is, "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."

Conservative gun supporters began an assault during the Brady years culminating in District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008).

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."

The relatively recent activism of the conservative bent of the Supreme Court highlights the differences of that Court when compared to historical decisions concerning the 2nd Amendment.

Recent challenges which were eventually accepted by the Supreme Court such as Heller, were deliberately constructed by conservative groups with specific intent to overturn historical decisions on the 2nd Amendment, knowing full well the conservative makeup and activism of recent Supreme Court members.

If we can get a few more Obama appointees on the Supreme Court perhaps this country can get back to common sense legal interpretations.

By the way, shotguns were considered not applicable under the 2nd Amendment, in the US vs. Miller decision of 1939, specifically because they were not considered equipment used as standard militia or military issue.

How irresponsible is a decision that strikes down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock"?

-Ron-


 o
RE: requested by David

Roger Mundell etered his garage only to be confronted by a seemingly rabid bobcat that gained entry thru an opened door. The bobcat attacked Mundell biting him in the face and clawing his arms. Mundell escaped but before he could warn his nephew lunged at him and grabbed his arm. Asw Mundell tried to pull the cat off his wife came with a firearm, Mundell was able to shoot the cat. The cat in fact turned out to be rabid and mundell and nephew went thru the rabies shots. Spencer New Leader, Amherst, MA. 1/18/2113


 o
next

Hasib Kuric, a homeless man living behind a gas station, spotted 2 men putting on face masks and gloves outside the building. Kuric ran inside and warned the clerk, Leonard Carr. The men came right behind Kuric and began shooting. Kuric grabbed his own firearm and returned fire. One of the masked men was fatally iwounded as the other fled and was arrested a few blocks away. He was charged with of attempted armed felony murder, one count of 2nd degree felony murder and one count of armed occupied burlary.Neither Kuric or Carr were injured. Hollywood Fla. 1/15/13

sorry, can add more when the eye drops wear off. Ive got a bunch.


 o
RE: requested by David

And we have a million more , FF. Wear yourself out. Never gonna change a single mind except make us more anti gun.


 o
RE: requested by David

How do you know the prosecutor was carrying inside his home?

Mae West wannabes can no longer ask: "Is that a pistol in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?" because the answer will be that there is indeed a pistol in the pocket.


 o
RE: requested by David

Lily, you could be more anti gun?? Ah well, its just like our side becoming more pro gun.


 o
RE: requested by David

After confronting a man lurking ib his front yard the previous morning, Clint Lowery called police a 2nd thime when the same man tried to gain by forcing open the front door in his home. With his 2 yr old daughter sleeping inside, Lowery did what he had to do to ensure his familys safety. Lowery met the intruder on the front porch with a 12 gage shotgun and held him until police arrived. Peninsula Daily News Port Angeles, WA,

1/23/13


 o
RE: requested by David

When 2 men walked into Rafael Lantiguas store after dark with their hoods pulled over their heads exposing only their eyes he grew suspicious. Understandably so as one of the men produced a gun and pointed it at him. Lantigua quickly reached for his own firearm from his waist band and pointed it in their direction. Both men jumped back in surprise before fleeing the premises. Both are reported to still be at large.Nothing was stolen, no one was harmed.
The Eagle tribune Lawrance, MAss 1/14/13


 o
RE: requested by David

I wonder if the homeless guy had a license to own a gun?


 o
RE: requested by David

Ya know, we're not even coming close to 60,000 "the gun saved me" last week, and each and every week.

More like once every three weeks.


 o
RE: requested by David

This post is so ridiculous.

How about the stats on how many people are accidentally killed, injured, by so called, defending themselves, to only find out that they shot and killed a loved one or injured a love one, just because they had the gun to protect themselves and thought someone was breaking in?

Bet there are a heck of a lot more of them than those that saved someone because they had a loaded gun.

Got any stats on how many legally owned, legally purchased, even safely secured guns are stolen from homes on a yearly basis?

Got any stats on how many people are actually shot with their own gun, taken from them by someone that has broken into their home?

Got any stats for how many people attempted to shoot the burglar, the store robber, the home invasion person and ended up dead instead?

Yup, I'm betting there are a heck of a lot more of all those missing stats than there are stats that fancifowl is posting,

But heck, why show those stats, those numbers, that would blow the NRA and their crew out of the water and prove that their claims are really just that, claims that are more absurd than anything else.


 o
RE: requested by David

In this part of the country where a lot of people have guns, when the occasion arrises that they use one to protect themselves, they let everybody know - the paper, the sheriff, the neighborhood gossips etc. So we hear about one case every two years. That works as well for those times they weren't armed and they were beaten up or what ever.

The only exception would be a 'three S' - Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up - when somebody shot something they shouldn't have, like a bear or a mountain lion.

I don't deny that having a gun may well disuade criminal activity - no problem. I do have a problem believing that in this country, 60,000 times a week, somebody uses a gun to protect themselves. Because we'd hear a lot more about it if it were so. Given the sharp focus following Sandyhook, you'd think the papers would be full of examples. They're not.


 o
RE: requested by David

60,000 oes sound a bit much. Ive read of much lower numbers which I could better believe, but its obvious there are many uses of a firearm which prevent death of good people. In talking to one of the deputies the other day, he mentioned how often they come across minor incidents where a gun was used to end one kind of situation or another and the gun is never fired. I guess just faced with someone who will stand their ground is more than enuff for a lot of wannabes.


 o
RE: requested by David

Ditto what Little stated. The use of these stats which are being used to support a position that no real gun ownership reform is the only good gun ownership reform is painfully obvious.

Just say, "keep your hands out of our private gun supply and off of the way we can get them."
That would be a lot more honest.

Not that it would actually advance your cause, of course.
But it wont specifically hurt your cause as much as this obvious disingenuousness does.

So at least you would have that.


 o
RE: requested by David

A study published in the Injury Prevention Journal, based on a 2004 National Firearms Survey, found that 20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation's guns.
The media and the massacre
Shooting victim's mother speaks
Where was God in Aurora?

A 2007 survey by the U.N's Office on Drugs and Crime found that the United States, which has 5% of the world's population, owns 50% of the world's guns.

The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found

The concentration comes, in part, because guns are "marketed by and large to people who already own guns," Lizotte said.

This was from the CNN site from last Summer.

-Ron-


 o
RE: requested by David

Ditto for what littleone said. FF, do you realize how much bad PR you've done for the gun nuts? You have done them no favors for sure. Made me hate guns even more than before.


 o
RE: requested by David

My purpose, Marshallz, is not to convince... that's already been proven a futile effort in the majority of cases here, and regardless of the issue we discuss or the facts that are brought into play.

My purpose is to add my thoughts and opinions to the discussion, some with additional articles or stories or statistical information in reference, or to add validity to a claim.

It's a very reasonable idea to limit the general public from walking the streets carrying actual assault weapons or military grade items such as rocket launchers, grenades, and other paraphernalia... but it's entirely another matter for media to pick and choose what they highlight for the purpose of hyping and causing public panic or fear about what amounts to a non-issue in many cases.

In the state where I live, the strictest firearm laws already exist. Gun incidents have not stopped as a result of such legislation, nor have they have lessened in any substantial numbers that would indicate such restrictions actually serve their intended purposes.

Prohibition did not bring an end to the consumption of alcohol, and neither will firearm restrictions bring an end to gun violence. It's a provable fact.

I do believe that if law enforcement agencies redirected their efforts and focused them on violent crime instead of a lot of the non-violent "crime" they exert so much of their energy on, and spend so much money and resources on... and if our Justice system would quit filling prisons with non-violent "offenders" and use the space for violent criminals, instead... in other words, fix it where it's broken... there then may be a drop in the number of repeat crimes of a violent nature.

Firearm restrictions or bans are not the answer to the many problems and cannot address the actual causes. That much is clear from the statistics, from looking at the larger picture of our combined systems, and simply from a viewpoint of what is logical. Social decay is rampant... and the variables for such decay are many.

Let's be honest, here... out of a single media reported incident there spawned over a dozen threads, most of them vilifying firearms and anyone who disagrees that they are useless and awful implements that only kill people. It really does border on the ridiculous.

And this is typical of the response any time the media pushes an issue, biased one way or another.

I can't convince anyone of anything... I can only add my thoughts, ideas, and opinions to the discussion for consideration.


 o
RE: requested by David

This one's for you, FF, from Yahoo News

"Using a tree for target practice sounds harmless enough, right? That wasn't the case for an Iowa man who is recovering at a hospital after the tree he aimed his gun at fired back.
No, this isn’t an April Fools’ Day prank playing on the much-maligned M. Night Shyamalan film “The Happening.”
An Iowa man is expected to survive but will have one heck of a story to tell after he fired his pistol at a tree only to have the shot ricochet and impact upon himself.
27-year-old Logan Bunn transported himself to a nearby hospital in La Crosse, Wisconsin. The Allamakee County Sheriff’s Office says the incident happened at about 4:30am on Sunday morning."

woodman marksman spare that tree!
Touch shoot not a single bough...


 o
RE: requested by David

wow, now thats a freak accident if I ever heard of one!
You know what witches brooms are? They are mutations in tree branches which cause odd growths. These brooms are regurly shot down with a rifle and then encouraged to grow producing more trees which have odd/unique structure.

Lily, do you really think any posts to this place have any bearing, on anything?


 o
RE: requested by David

The onvestigation will reveal the facts, but my guess is that someone put metal into the tree, by way of hanging a sign or something. Folks don't realize how hazardous that can be down the road, though usually not for the same reason. It's usually the logging contractor or mill worker who pays the price with an injury. My best guess.


 o
RE: requested by David

Dave:

"In this part of the country where a lot of people have guns, when the occasion arrises that they use one to protect themselves, they let everybody know - the paper, the sheriff, the neighborhood gossips etc."

You really know EVERY single case in your county? How do you do that?

Bill Vincent, I'm pretty sure, at least once, has said something about having, one time only, to SHOW his gun to someone who backed off in some sort of potential attack on him.

If that had made the news, I'd suspect Bill would have proudly posted it here. I bet that Bill never made any report of the incident.

After I left my childhood home a long time ago, my mother and sister told me about hearing someone around my sister's bedroom window one night. My mom, who slept with a loaded gun under her bed, went out and fired a few shots into the air. (Not advisable, maybe, but that's what she did.) The next morning they found that the screen on the window had been cut. Never was reported, never made the news.

"Given the sharp focus following Sandyhook, you'd think the papers would be full of examples. They're not."

Lott again

"Lott cites a Los Angeles Times’ survey of some 3,000 journalists that found a whopping 78% of the media supporting stricter gun control measures,...."

How often have the Anti-gun nuts on this forum ever told you about an incident involving a gun used defensively? How many times have they posted stories about guns being used aggressively?

I'm also reminded that you, Dave, have told us many times about the phenomenon of the "CUTE WHITE GIRL MISSING". (I forget the name of that bias.)

"If it bleeds, it leads."

Man shoots tree. Doesn't get reported. Tree shoots man.....

Hay


 o
RE: requested by David

"More like once every three weeks."

Really? I gave you one for Easter Sunday, David. Here is one for Sunday night. Just because the MSM won't tell you doesn't mean you have to remain in the dark. You get to choose how much censorship you're willing to accept. I'm always surprised when intelligent men accept implausible information, without question.

Posted: Apr 01, 2013 3:34 PM EDT Updated: Apr 01, 2013 9:49 PM EDT
By Paul Craig - email

OREGON CITY, OR (KPTV) -

"An Oregon City woman was being attacked by a man after parking her car Sunday night, until she pulled out her handgun and sent the assailant running.

Oregon City police said it happened at 10:20 p.m. near 8th Street and JQ Adams Street. The 22-year-old woman said a stranger approached her from behind and grabbed her pony tail, dragging her backward.

She said he continued to assault her until she produced her handgun, which she legally owns, according to police.

The woman pointed the gun at the attacker and he ran away."

Do you know Colorado Democrat Joe Salazar, David? He says women who fear they're going to be raped should blow a whistle! Women, he said, might not be able to figure out if they're in real danger. Innocent men, he worried, might be hurt by hysterical women.

Because she is not "represented" by Mr. Salazar and Democrats of his ilk, this Oregon woman was armed with a gun instead of a whistle. Thank heavens!

Here is a link that might be useful: Surprised? Woman with gun, bad guy runs


 o
RE: requested by David

Forgot about this comment in Lott's link above.

"Lott maintains that "...we almost never discuss the positive effects of guns: that they often save innocent lives..." He estimates defensive gun use---1.5 to 3.4 million occurrences every year---is so under reported that people have a hard time believing it happens at all."

And I suspect many of you won't believe him, ( And I'm not so sure myself. We all have our biases), but for what it's worth...

""My role as an economist is not to consider whether Americans have a ‘right’ to own guns...my only objective is to study the measurable effect that gun laws have on the incidents of violence, and to let the facts speak for themselves."

Hay


 o
RE: requested by David

Mike & Amy Stephens were at home with their 2 young daughters when they saw deputies speeding past their home. The couple then heard on their police scanner that there was a man in the area being sought by police. Mike grabbed a flashlight and and headed outside to investigate and to make sure his familys home was secure.As he stepped outside he saw the 26 year old fugitive nearby. Mike attempted to detain him while Amy dialed 911. The fugitive was able to grab the flashlight and started swinging it wildly over his head. Amy appeared with a .243 rifle and warned the man that she would shoot. Soon after, the fugitive was arrrested and booked on several charges. daily inter Lake Evergreen, MT 1/5/13


 o
RE: requested by David

Apropos of nothing, except that we're swapping hero stories, this guy sounds like he didn't even have a gun...or need one.

George Phillips, an elderly man, from Walled Lake, Michigan, was going up to bed, when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed which she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the back door to go turn off the light, but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things.

He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your house?"

He said "No, but some people are breaking into my garden shed and stealing from me."

Then the police dispatcher said "All patrols are busy. You should lock your doors and an officer will be along when one is available"

George said, "Okay." He hung up the phone and counted to 30. Then he phoned the police again.

"Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people stealing things from my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now because I just shot and killed them both, the dogs are eating them right now." and he hung up.

Within five minutes, six Police Cars, a SWAT Team, a Helicopter, two Fire Trucks, a Paramedic, and an Ambulance showed up at the Phillips' residence, and caught the burglars red-handed.

One of the Policemen said to George, "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"

George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"

Don't mess with old people.


 o
RE: requested by David

Please stop citing Lott's junk science.
It would be great to allow the government to allocate money for this kind of research but the NRA opposes that. Why do you suppose that is?

Here is a link that might be useful: Lott gets taken to school on Piers Morgan


 o
RE: requested by David

I love the one where they pull guns on a couple of guys with the hoodies who run away.

Couldn't be a couple of kids off a basketball team, hungry, late at night.


 o
RE: requested by David

According to a 2004 Gallup poll 49% of men reported gun ownership, compared to 33% of women, and 44% of whites owned a gun, compared to only 24% of nonwhites. Of those living in rural areas 56% owned a gun, compared with 40% of suburbanites and 29% of those in urban areas. 53% of Republicans owned guns, compared with 36% of political independents and 31% of Democrats.

Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths are suicides. Two-thirds of all murders are by firearms.

Gun related-death rate per 100,000 for the US is around 10.2. That's slightly below Mexico, Panama, & Columbia. As a comparison the rate for Canada is 2.13, Italy is 1.28, Germany is 1.1, Australia 1.05, Spain .63, Netherlands .46, UK .25, Japan .07.

-Ron-


 o
RE: requested by David

"More like once every three weeks."

The facts don't seem to support your estimate, David.

What do you think is going on in Colorado? I see Denver has at least one law firm that specializes in defending people being prosecuted for home invasions! Did you know that? Do you have any sense of how many home invasions happen around Denver in a year? That sounds pretty frightening to me.

FTA: "By Keith Coffman, Reuters

DENVER - An intruder who forced his way into the mountain home of a Colorado deputy district attorney was shot dead by either the prosecutor or her police officer husband, authorities said on Tuesday.

The shooting, shortly before midnight Monday, comes two weeks after Colorado's prisons director was slain as he answered the front door to his home, and two days after the district attorney of Kaufman County in Texas was found shot to death with his wife.

An assistant prosecutor in the Kaufman County district attorney's office was shot to death on January 31, and authorities have said both Texas murders and the March 19 slaying of Colorado prisons chief Tom Clements appeared to be targeted killings rather than random acts of violence.

In light of the three previous cases, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation is leading the probe into the latest shooting, which occurred in Hot Sulphur Springs, about 95 miles northwest of Denver.

"There are no apparent ties to recent shootings; however, investigators continue to pursue all possible leads and background information on this (dead) person," the bureau said in a written statement."

Here is a link that might be useful: Colorado intruder killed by homeowner


 o
RE: requested by David

So, since there was one, there must have been 60,000 that week.

I see how those facts stack up.


 o
RE: requested by David

you stack to the left, others stack to the right. Is there really any difference?
Just dont mess with my hardware and its all I ask.


 o
RE: requested by David

The way that the NRA has radicalized many Republicans on the gun reform proposals has been nothing short of shameful.
Too many on the Right are unwilling to even discuss gun safety reforms in a rational manner. They even refuse to offer any compromise on extreme positions and believe that the government has no right to regulate gun ownership whatsoever in this country.

This must be a disappointment for victims of gun violence and for Police, firemen and others who risk their lives on the streets everyday in neighborhoods where guns are everywhere.

This is yet one more issue that the Right Wing in this country
has approached with strict ideology and a stubborn refusal to compromise. They continue to make themselves into a hateful bunch who care more about themselves and less about the rest. And that begs the question, if they don't give a damn about so many who really are needy, why should those who do not own weapons cater to their gun hobby? Why should we even listen to their side of the coin on that or on any other issue? How about we shut down debate on all issues like they want to shut down the gun debate and filibuster and obstruct everything they disagree with?
It has become clear even to many Republicans that they have a big problem with being stubborn and unreasonable. The gun safety debate is just the latest chapter in that book.

This post was edited by heri_cles on Wed, Apr 3, 13 at 22:46


 o
RE: requested by David

many see things differently. We feel the gun grabbing leftists will not negotiate with any degree of honesty. They have proven too many times by now that they will stop at nothing to punish law abiding gun owners. Just about every civilian weapon has at one time been suggested on a ban list. They try to demonize a bolt action Ruger hunting rifle as a sniper rifle, then a pistol as an Saturday night special, then a type of bullet as more deadly than another type, then moly or teflon coating as evil now its on to semi auto matic gas operated guns as evil then anything more than 7 rounds of ammo as bad. And we are expected to lie down like scared sheep! I dont think so. If the gun grabbers want any assistance, they could stop demonizing good people and make more effforts to punish bad people.\\ It seems to me the left has been the side to shut down reasonable discussion, I am not having any of it from now on. Lies, lies and more lies from the left.


 o
RE: requested by David

Yea, well, my shooting and hunting won't change a bit with background checks, magazine limits, or any of the other proposed regulations.

While others cheer as the march towards more and more powerful weapons with less and less regulations accelerates, all the while playing the poor, misunderstood, oppressed lawful gun owner.


 o
RE: requested by David

"So, since there was one, there must have been 60,000 that week."


Stay with me, David. You estimated one every three weeks. As of my post yesterday, we knew of three in less than one week. That's a fact. Stick around and learn something so you're not pulling irrelevant numbers out of your left nostril.


 o
RE: requested by David

Oh, so I should have said if there are three, then there are 60,000.

Whats the total for 2013, as reported on this thread? At 60,000 a week, we should have 720,000 by now.


 o
RE: requested by David

We feel the gun grabbing leftists will not negotiate with any degree of honesty.

The we you speak of might want to step out of your bubble and....

Try putting your level of experience of dealing with the we group in your bubble and try judging others not of your standards and experience of your bubble residents but by facts and the people outside that bubble that deal in integrity, respect for life and honesty lacking in your "we" group.


 o
RE: requested by David

you been drinkin some bubbly or what?

So now we see David, if it doesnt effect you, you are cool with it! Pretty much figured that all along anyhow.


 o
RE: requested by David

I don't think it affects any of the hunters and shooters I know at all, and might well do more to preserve gun rights than the NRA position of refusing any regulations at all - oh, except make a list of mentally ill people. But with no background checks, whats the point?

Nope, Happy to have background checks, magazine limits of 15, pay $10 for a background check, and that Colorado thing with turning in your guns when you're convicted of domestic abuse.


 o
RE: requested by David

might well do more to preserve gun rights than the NRA position of refusing any regulations at all

The thinking of an intelligent, rational person.

It's too bad the NRA doesn't have any of those in any position of power.

Someone (mylab?) made a very good point a long time ago. Gun owners that agree with that statement should have formed a group separate form the NRA a long time ago to promote that kind of thinking.


 o
RE: requested by David

What people do not seem to understand is that none of these regulations or restrictions will have any effect on those people who need to be regulated or restricted, namely the violent criminal. All these laws do is slowly chip away at the law abiding citizen. Period.

If I abide by the law, and I use firearms safely and responsibly, then why do I need to be regulated and restricted so heavily? Have I given law enforcement or my government any reason to think I need to be babysat and have my toys taken away in small increments?


 o
RE: requested by David

Oh they understand jodi, they do understand. They just dont like gun owners. They want their rights but have no respect fo all of the rights. They understand for sure, 100%


 o
RE: requested by David

Kinda like speed limits for drivers, and seat belt laws, air bags, etc. Yes, some idiots will ignore that stuff.

And these laws punish the poor, law-abiding driver who know what safe speed limits are without the government oppressing away.


 o
RE: requested by David

Not an effective example, David. No offense intended.


 o
RE: requested by David

For once, I have to agree with Elvis. The majority of arguments on this issue have been specious, at best.


 o
RE: requested by David

Oh, yes, brilliant plan. Criminals are not going to pay attention to the gun restriction laws. Therefore, NO LAWS. Huh, why didn't I think of that? Oh, I don't know...maybe because it makes no sense.

(edited to remove obnoxious word, which I apologize for if anyone read it!)

This post was edited by jillinnj on Fri, Apr 5, 13 at 10:21


 o
RE: requested by David

Of all the arguments the two that really make you scratch your head is.......

They will not stop criminals. Nothing stops all criminal acts. So only something that is suggested that would stop ALL criminals would be accepted? What law can anyone name that stops all criminal acts? But we have laws. Should all laws be taken off the books because we still have people that break the law?

The other is I do not trust them. But we should trust you to not sell a gun to your crazy uncle Bob because he is as crazy as you and you do not recognize crazy.

I do not want criminals to buy their guns legal. I want everybody checked before they can buy a gun legally. Criminals are dealt with through the legal system now except for being able to buy a gun. I will not be a part of helping making it easy for the criminals to buy a gun. I want him/her to have to go that extra step to get it illegal.


 o
RE: requested by David

Oh, ok! How about hunting laws and regulations? Will that work? We have seasons, limits on the number of rounds you can have in your gun, licenses, restrictions on what you can shoot and how many of what you can shoot, and in some states, limits on the calibers you can use.

But poachers will just ignore these laws.

Therefore, all these laws are worthless.

And I'll let you come up with how this is such a hardship for law-abiding hunters and destroys their freedoms.


 o
RE: requested by David

Very stupid argument. Criminals ignore ALL laws ,that's what makes them criminals. So we should abolish any legislation because the deviants in our society won't honor them?. How crazy.


 o
RE: requested by David

We have laws, ever noticed. lets enforce existing laws and see if that works before further infringing on the good guys. I just cant figure out why more laws, and little enforcement of present laws??


 o
RE: requested by David

WASHINGTON: The National Rifle Association says proposals such as universal background checks for gun buyers won't work and the nation must enforce the laws it has. But lobbying records and interviews show the organization has worked steadily to weaken existing gun laws and the federal agency charged with enforcing them.

"I think the majority of the American public sees through this and want the current laws enforced," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said on Fox News Sunday of the current effort to implement more restrictions. "They don't want more laws imposed on what is only going to be the law-abiding."

A review of congressional legislative records, federal lobbying disclosure forms, as well as interviews with former ATF agents, shows how the NRA has repeatedly supported legislation to weaken several of the nation's gun laws and opposed any attempt to boost the ability of the Bureau of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to enforce current laws, including:

The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. This law mandated that the ATF could only inspect firearms dealers once a year. It reduced record-keeping penalties from felonies to misdemeanors, prohibited the ATF from computerizing purchase records for firearms and required the government to prove that a gun dealer was "willful" if they sold a firearm to a prohibited person.
The Tiahrt amendments. Beginning in 2003, the amendments by then-representative Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., to the Justice Department's appropriation bill included requirements such as the same-day destruction of FBI background check documents and limits on the sharing of data from traces.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act. Most recently introduced in 2011, the bill proposed changing several regulations, including redefining the burden of proof for agents investigating firearms dealers accused of selling to prohibited individuals and capping fines for other violations.

"For all practical purposes, (the act) made it not impossible but very, very difficult to police both licensed and unlicensed dealers both from a regulatory point of view and a criminal prosecution point of view," said William Vizzard, a professor of criminal justice at California State University-Sacramento and a former ATF agent.

One provision in the law Vizzard cited as particularly vexing to the ATF was that false record keeping for dealers was reduced to a misdemeanor, meaning if an ATF agent audited a gun dealer missing 1,200 guns, the dealer could not be charged with a federal offense.

"You just don't get many U.S. attorneys filing misdemeanors in federal court," he said.

Joseph Vince, a retired ATF agent, also mentioned the 1986 act, but added the agency was woefully underfunded because of NRA pressure in Congress.

And, of course, the NRA has pulled the puppet strings so that there is no head of the ATF for years now.

bit disingenuous, don't you think, to complain about how they should enforce existing laws all the while making sure they can't?

This post was edited by david52 on Fri, Apr 5, 13 at 19:25


 o
RE: requested by David

The clintoon regime is the root of some of these newer regulations due to their harassment of the gun industry and gun dealers in their effort to put them out of business during their moment of gun grabbing. The NRA was the instigator of stiffer trequired penalties for those who commit crimes with a gun, the dems would not go along with that plan, how come? Its not at all disingenous, not 1 little bit.
Have you looked into why there is no ATF head?
The aclu works hard at perverting the 1st amendment, but you prefer to attack 5 million NRA members for standing firm on all amendments? thats seems disingenous to me.


 o
RE: requested by David

Oh, so gutting the Clinton era laws is ok, what with the NRA standing up for gun rights, and the NRA would back stricter penalties for gun crimes, its just that nobody wants to do it?

That has little to do with "enforcing current laws", which is the slogan du jour.

Falsify gun sale records, its a misdemeanor. Its almost impossible to convict a straw purchaser - see Fast and Furious, where the DA's refused to press charges because the courts throw the cases out.

Pretty hard to enforce the unenforceable. Which was the NRA idea all along.


 o
RE: requested by David

The NRA was the instigator of stiffer trequired penalties for those who commit crimes with a gun...

Where do you get your information? You're doing something harder than just drinking down the bubbly. Sounds more like laced kool-aid. Give me a break!

-Ron-


 o
RE: requested by David

What tarp have you been hiding under there Ron, its actually old news. You can find with a bit of effort, if you are even interested. Virginia was the 1st state to give it a try.


 o
RE: requested by David

"What tarp have you been hiding under there Ron, its actually old news. You can find with a bit of effort, if you are even interested."

Relying on the MSM has left some posters here less informed than they could be. To David's credit, he's open to new information. He doesn't seem to be pleased with what has been posted, but he's paying attention. As you say, information is readily available with a bit of effort. With any source, it's a good idea to stop and ask yourself "Does this really make sense?"


 o
RE: requested by David

Relying on the MSM has left some posters here less informed than they could be. To David's credit, he's open to new information. He doesn't seem to be pleased with what has been posted, but he's paying attention. As you say, information is readily available with a bit of effort. With any source, it's a good idea to stop and ask yourself "Does this really make sense?"

Yeah, sure. I'll go check on Newsmax or the Washington Times or American Patriot.

-Ron-


 o
RE: requested by David

Relying on the MSM has left some posters here less informed than they could be

This line has gotten so old and tired......

How many of us get all our info from MSM?

How many of us only know about something because of MSM?

Do you only believe what you hear if you hear it on MSM?

Can we agree it is a weak, stupid and useless argument? It was a argument used in the GOP debates but it is stupid. I know, I know but, but "they said it so it must be true"...... but it is not.

This is why the GOP needed a autopsy and had to be told they are “‘scary,’ ‘narrow minded,’ and ‘out of touch’.

You have to be narrow minded to repeat MSM and only rely on one source for your info and repeat, repeat, repeat the same tired outdated line.


 o
RE: requested by David

This is a superior (read: ugliest) thread so far and is filled with so much of what ultimately kills grass when piled too deep and too wide.


 o
RE: requested by David

David is not blind as some here seem to be. I respect his opinions and most of his posts. We just have some differences of opinion. Its like looking at those ink blots, they7 can look different to different people. On the other hand, some here just have no intention of removing their blinders. Its no big deal.


 o
RE: requested by David

FF, the trouble, as I see it, you are one of those that can't or won't see the difference between a gun and a gun owner. There are folks that can abide by the first and have no problem with the second. There are other folks that are so insecure (or whatever) that they fear gun haters and throw them in with the relatively few that might hate gun owners. That just lacks common sense and so immediately alienates moderates on the subject like me.


 o
RE: requested by David

fanci, I don't think 'divide and conquer' works very well in here.

-Ron-


 o
RE: requested by David

"Yeah, sure. I'll go check on Newsmax or the Washington Times or American Patriot."

Did you find anything interesting?


 o
RE: requested by David

Well... let's see... we have plenty of laws against the importation, distribution, sale, and use of illicit drugs... how's that working out?

We have laws dedicated to stopping the assault of others... have bar fights and domestic abuse stopped because of them?

There are laws regulating alcohol and driving... what were those statistics on DUI and alcohol related homicides or deaths again?

We have laws against murder... I'm pretty sure it still happens from time to time, though.

Rape is against the law... though you wouldn't know it looking at current statistics.

What about kidnapping and molestation of children? There are laws against those horrors, too... but they haven't seemed to stop any of those criminals intent upon perpetrating such crimes, have they?

It's against the law to steal... but I'm pretty sure theft is still an ongoing activity.

So, in light of all that, what makes anyone in their right mind think that adding more firearm laws on top of the ones we already have will make the difference, and be THE deciding factor in ending gun related violence?

Again... good grief. Critical thinking and problem solving are decidedly not skills that everyone possesses.

Laws only work if everyone abides by them... and clearly, this is not the case with any of the laws currently on the books. Show me a law, and I'll show you someone who broke it. This is why we have a Justice System, a prison system, and Law Enforcement Agencies working around the clock.

Rational thinking says, why not try enforcing the laws we currently have, and stiffly punishing those violent offenders who break them.


 o
RE: requested by David

"Rational thinking says, why not try enforcing the laws we currently have, and stiffly punishing those violent offenders who break them. "

Because the people who commit these horrific murders are not violent offenders. In the case of Sandy Hook he got his arsenal from Mommy.. no record, no nothing...and it will happen again.

I said earlier in this thread , or perhaps another,,,,if guns don;t kill people...people kill people then why not register the people instead of the guns......???

This is none of my business and I rarely chime in on this subject but I truly do find the gun culture in the States to be strange.....as do I find the attitude towards universal health care to be strange ....as I find the acceptance of huge money in your political system to be strange....

Will give you this....... you surely are strange! LOL


 o
RE: requested by David

We didn't used to be, chase.

I live here and often feel like a stranger in a strange land.


 o
RE: requested by David

Jodik, what are you talking about? DUI laws are working. Assault laws are working. I know that theft laws work.

"Again... good grief. Critical thinking and problem solving are decidedly not skills that everyone possesses."

Clearly.


 o
RE: requested by David

When it comes to guns, no new laws, just enforce existing laws against criminal behavior. When it come to personal conduct, criminalize as much behavior as the public will accept, and enforce some of those laws in some circumstances.


 o
RE: requested by David

Marshall, what new law would do any good? What more can we do by merely passing more and more laws? We could pass as many new laws as we have old laws, for what? If the present laws are not enforced, who the hell is gonna enforce more laws? Come on man.

This country has a;lways been different, whats new?


 o
RE: requested by David

devide and conquer?/ Heh, not my style dude. Just how I call it is all.. You dont seem all bad yerself. I have my preferred here, and a few Id not have lunch with too. You might be surprised. I really dont hold grudges on places such as this. If I was inclined to seek out followers, Id a been a preacher.


 o
RE: requested by David

"I have NEVER said that Canadians are better or smarter than Americans. I would never say that because I don't believe it to be true.
I said we have different priorities...and we do."

I've been watching your comments since you said that to me.

Does strange count?

Another thread, another day. Healthcare, again.

"I just don't get it. it makes no sense.

So our conduct and ideas are strange and make no sense, but you'd never say that you are better and smarter. OK, we'll go with strange and make no sense.

No need to respond.

Hay


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here