When are Democrats going to return to reality regarding firearm rights?

[trenchfoot]

How about hearing from the people and their families who used a firearm to protect themselves and their families?




http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

Good point. By all means.:thumbsup:

 

[HypX]

How about hearing from the people and their families who used a firearm to protect themselves and their families?




http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

My bullshit meter just got tripped. Is 2.5 million acts of self-defense per year even possible? Do 2.5 million plausible self-defense situations even appear in a year?

Alright, here's what I've found. It seems to come from this guy Gary Kleck. It looks like it was a survey of about 5000 households and he extrapolated to 2.5 million per year. Doing the math here, we're looking at about 1% of the surveyed claiming they used a gun in self defense. That's within the margin of error to zero, so maybe 0-2.5 million and he cited the highest number. Also this is self-reporting, so no guarantees what they say is true.

Found a report about this claim: http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf Seems to support the claim that this guy is probably wrong.

 

[Lithium381]

What % of crimes are done by CCW holders? a VEEERRRRRYYYY low percentage.
what % of crimes are done by registered owners? a low percentage.
what % of crimes are done by illegal possesors of the firearms? most of them.

great, lets concentrate there. Where are they getting their guns? Home burgluries? Lets mandate a safe or locking mechanism for each home with a gun. Are they getting them smuggled in? Tighten up the border. . . . I don't understand why they're picking the particular fight that they are . . . with "assault weapons" that have ZOMG A BAYONET LUG. . . .

and most murders aren't MASS MURDERS . . . they're drivebys and gang shootings. They don't buy 1000's rounds of ammunition. they buy a box of 50 for their revolvers they got on special on saturday night . . . seriously what is this going to solve?

 

[Genx87]

OTOH, anything that irritates and wastes the energy of gun owners and gun sellers is a net positive in my book.

Who is keeping track of the paperwork? You act as if this only affects the gun owners. This also affects the ammo dealer and the state who now has to track the paperwork.

 

[xj0hnx]

I guess what's missing in this thread are the opinions of those whose husbands, wives, children and loved ones had fallen victim to gun crimes. You know, to see the whole picture and all that.

Who knows, maybe the majority of them want firearms for themselves now that tragedy has struck their lives. It just seems proper to hear their side of the story before making an informed opinion on this topic.

No, we've got that. I was shot in a "gun crime", and am absolutely for gun ownership.

 

[cybrsage]

This is a dumb argument. Forks don't make eating many many many times more efficient and possible to accomplish in short order before police can react.

Then we change it to "if guns kill people, stoves make people fat". Cooking your food definately makes eating it many many many times more efficient.

 

[QuantumPion]

My bullshit meter just got tripped. Is 2.5 million acts of self-defense per year even possible? Do 2.5 million plausible self-defense situations even appear in a year?

Alright, here's what I've found. It seems to come from this guy Gary Kleck. It looks like it was a survey of about 5000 households and he extrapolated to 2.5 million per year. Doing the math here, we're looking at about 1% of the surveyed claiming they used a gun in self defense. That's within the margin of error to zero, so maybe 0-2.5 million and he cited the highest number. Also this is self-reporting, so no guarantees what they say is true.

Found a report about this claim: http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf Seems to support the claim that this guy is probably wrong.

Uh you can't just arbitrarily claim "1% is within the margin of error, and therefore zero". That's not how statistics works.

The probability of being the victim of a violent crime (robbery,assault,etc) in the U.S. at some point in your lifetime is ~80%. So it's not hard to imagine at all 2.5 million defensive use case per year (2.5 million = 1% of adult population per year).

 

[zinfamous]

1000 rounds is not nearly enough to protect me from Schneiderguy, of whom I know lives relatively close to me, and is well-armed.

I think this legislation is retarded, if for no other reason than I am scurred of schneiderguy and his guns and will certainly need better protection for myself




(but seriously, this is retarded. I agree with OP).

 

[MrMuppet]

Saying guns kill people is like saying forks cause obesity.

Wrong thread. Rationing the food (ammo), rather than the forks (guns), would definitely have an effect on obesity.

 

[MrMuppet]

Basically the question worth considering is whether the theoretical ability to fight against a nebulous future government, plus 'self-defense' arguments, plus things like hunting, are worth the additional murders made possibly by guns compared to the amount that would happen without guns.

Well, the anti-gun crowd is trying to decide that for the pro-gun crowd. They're trying to make the pro-gun crowd their slaves. I'd rather die free with a gun in my hand. I think.

 

[thraashman]

So, multiple mass shootings happen. Knee jerk reaction creates legislation that will probably not help what it's in reaction to and cost a limited amount. Legislation doesn't actually infringe on rights, but could potentially be used to. This equals bad!!!11!!

Voter fraud doesn't happen (or at least if you take a percentage of registered voters vs a percentage of gun owners and figure a number of voter fraud cases vs a number of gun shooting victims, it happens at a rate significantly smaller). Knee jerk reaction (actually voter suppression disguised as such) creates legislation that will not help what it's claimed to be in reaction to and will cost millions. Legislation absolutely will infringe on rights and it will likely be at a huge rate. And this equals good?

... I will never understand conservative logic. Guess they'd have to have any first for that to be possible.

 

[MrMuppet]

I agree some gun regulation is necessary.

Why? Then you're saying the anti-gun crowd is right in principle and you're left only with arguing over numbers, an argument they can make you lose. :\

But I don't want clinically insane people in asylums to have guns either. Not sure how to reconcile this.

 

[MrMuppet]

Instead, my preferred approach would be some sort of central database run by the NSA that would have algorithms analyzing purchase patterns to see if something popped up.

The government knowing who buys what, implies the government knowing who to take what away from, when the time comes.

 

[Lithium381]

Why? Then you're saying the anti-gun crowd is right in principle and you're left only with arguing over numbers, an argument they can make you lose. :\

But I don't want clinically insane people in asylums to have guns either. Not sure how to reconcile this.

Heh, i'm hardly saying the anti-gun crowd is right. . . . .i'm saying lets look at what's REALLY happening and address it. How many gun deaths annually in the US? how many are NOT related to drugs/gangs?

the anti's just want to flat out ban guns via legislation. .. ..

 

[Darwin333]

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolaler...l-to-report-big-buyers-of-ammo-to-police.html

Summary: New bill introduced in CA requires businesses to report anyone who buys more than 1000 rounds of ammo to the police.

1000 rounds is two $15 boxes of .22lr. Between me and a friend we can go through that in about 2 hours at a range that doesn't even allow rapid fire.

If this is what "compromise" and "reasonable restrictions" are, I want nothing to do with them. I don't know why Democrats claim that the big bad NRA is being unreasonable, when it's the NRA that has compromised many times over the past 30 years and the Democrats just keep wanting more idiotic restrictions that do nothing but hurt law abiding gun owners.

So a person could purchase 900 rounds from 20 different stores and that person would not be reported to the police? Besides, this seems a little silly, how many murders are committed a year by people who purchase 1000+ rounds of ammo versus your typical gang banger who buys a box at a time for his glock fore-tay?

 

[HypX]

Uh you can't just arbitrarily claim "1% is within the margin of error, and therefore zero". That's not how statistics works.

No, it means it could be zero. It's not "2.5 million" it is 0 - 3.6 million, according to the other source. Other evidence suggest it is much closer to zero and not 2.5 million.

The probability of being the victim of a violent crime (robbery,assault,etc) in the U.S. at some point in your lifetime is ~80%. So it's not hard to imagine at all 2.5 million defensive use case per year (2.5 million = 1% of adult population per year).

That would be imply that nearly every crime committed end up with someone defending him/herself with a gun. We know that only a fraction of crimes end up with a gun being used in self-defense, so that still couldn't be right.

Look, it says right here it is 82,500 per year.

 

[Lithium381]

So a person could purchase 900 rounds from 20 different stores and that person would not be reported to the police? Besides, this seems a little silly, how many murders are committed a year by people who purchase 1000+ rounds of ammo versus your typical gang banger who buys a box at a time for his glock fore-tay?

exactly . . .. legislators go for "feel good" kneejerk reactions without understanding the problem itself. they address symptoms with bandaids not the root-cause. ..

 

[MrMuppet]

Nobody, I mean nobody is going to take guns away from Americans.

My point, again, is that the notion that gun rights are going away is so profoundly ludicrous and impossible that only the insane would try to take them or believe that anybody seriously could. There are a few imbeciles, no doubt, that dream of taking away guns, and millions of trembling loonies that fear they will succeed.

It's not like many people at all want to grab yer sacred guns, but when all they hear are the voices of extremists, it sets all too many to wondering if it might not be a good idea.

Then how come I can't go buy a gun in my country? (Legally.)

The two of you are arguing that the U.S. is a special case? I think you should be more understanding towards those who do not share that conviction.

 

[MrMuppet]

Then we change it to "if guns kill people, stoves make people fat". Cooking your food definately makes eating it many many many times more efficient.

LOL! True. It's been argued that cooking our food may indeed have been what allowed us to afford evolving large brains.

 

[MrMuppet]

My bullshit meter just got tripped.

My shill meter just did...

That link doesn't even consider the possibility that households owning firearms could be more likely to be burglarized, such as rural homes.

It was interesting though that in 1.32 million burglaries that year it (allegedly) is known that "someone certainly was home".

That alone implies at least 1.32 million cases, in a single year, you certainly would want to have easy access to a gun.

edit: Over 1% of 5000 households is over 50 households. That's hardly likely to be a measurement error, unless the methodology is flawed.

 

[schneiderguy]

So, multiple mass shootings happen. Knee jerk reaction creates legislation that will probably not help what it's in reaction to and cost a limited amount. Legislation doesn't actually infringe on rights, but could potentially be used to. This equals bad!!!11!!

Voter fraud doesn't happen (or at least if you take a percentage of registered voters vs a percentage of gun owners and figure a number of voter fraud cases vs a number of gun shooting victims, it happens at a rate significantly smaller). Knee jerk reaction (actually voter suppression disguised as such) creates legislation that will not help what it's claimed to be in reaction to and will cost millions. Legislation absolutely will infringe on rights and it will likely be at a huge rate. And this equals good?

... I will never understand conservative logic. Guess they'd have to have any first for that to be possible.

How does being reported to the police for doing nothing illegal NOT infringe upon my rights?

A better comparison would be people like you thinking it's OK to have to show your ID to exercise your right buy a gun but think it's a terrible thing to have to show your ID to exercise your right to vote.

This law is like being reported to the police for voting in more than two elections in a row. We're way beyond the "have to show ID" point for firearms.

And for your information, I'm not a conservative. I'm more liberal than you are. So fuck off with the "hurr conservatives are retarded and I'm so enlightened cuz I'm a librul" nonsense.

 

[schneiderguy]

1000 rounds is not nearly enough to protect me from Schneiderguy, of whom I know lives relatively close to me, and is well-armed.

I think this legislation is retarded, if for no other reason than I am scurred of schneiderguy and his guns and will certainly need better protection for myself




(but seriously, this is retarded. I agree with OP).

Be very afraid :awe:

 

[thraashman]

How does being reported to the police for doing nothing illegal NOT infringe upon my rights?

A better comparison would be people like you thinking it's OK to have to show your ID to exercise your right buy a gun but think it's a terrible thing to have to show your ID to exercise your right to vote.

This law is like being reported to the police for voting in more than two elections in a row. We're way beyond the "have to show ID" point for firearms.

And for your information, I'm not a conservative. I'm more liberal than you are. So fuck off with the "hurr conservatives are retarded and I'm so enlightened cuz I'm a librul" nonsense.

You're mistaking a right that doesn't exist with a right that does exist. If a town you lived in didn't have any gun stores, your second amendment rights aren't being infringed on. You have a right to bear arms, not a right to buy them. While they are closely related, they are still slightly different. Ever see those videos that conservatives love to post of guys being dicks to cops who approach them when they open carry? Note they usually refuse to show ID, which is their right, because you don't HAVE to show ID to BEAR arms.

What I'm trying to say here is I'm right, you're wrong, accept it and move on. I already said this law wouldn't do any good and is a waste. I was pointing out how similar in thought approach ID laws are and how incredibly much more infringing on rights they are.

 

[schneiderguy]

You're mistaking a right that doesn't exist with a right that does exist. If a town you lived in didn't have any gun stores, your second amendment rights aren't being infringed on. You have a right to bear arms, not a right to buy them. While they are closely related, they are still slightly different. Ever see those videos that conservatives love to post of guys being dicks to cops who approach them when they open carry? Note they usually refuse to show ID, which is their right, because you don't HAVE to show ID to BEAR arms.

Don't be ridiculous. Any reasonable person would realize that the right to keep and bear arms also includes the right to purchase them. Why do you think the Washington DC police department helped the sole firearms dealer in DC set up shop in the police station after he lost his lease? Because they were scared of getting beat down in court again if citizens couldn't purchase firearms.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/20/dcs-fix-set-up-a-gun-shop-in-police-hq/?page=all

What I'm trying to say here is I'm right, you're wrong, accept it and move on. I already said this law wouldn't do any good and is a waste. I was pointing out how similar in thought approach ID laws are and how incredibly much more infringing on rights they are.

Bullshit. Having to show ID to purchase a firearm is exactly as infringing as having to show an ID to vote.

 

[Moonbeam]

Then how come I can't go buy a gun in my country? (Legally.)

The two of you are arguing that the U.S. is a special case? I think you should be more understanding towards those who do not share that conviction.

What do you mean? The US is a special case. I would guess you can't buy a gun in your country because it's illegal to do so. What conviction am I suppoesd to have that you think makes me less understanding?