The right to bear arms
Options
Replies
-
I wear tank tops to show my right to bear arms. Nice peaks huh?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I think it has to do with false sense of security.
I always get the same answer when I ask why people feel the need to own something powerful enough to take just one life let alone dozens.
"To protect myself"
It's always this answer in some form or another.
Life doesn't seem to work that way though. Sure, you'd like to be armed in an old timey Western stand-off. But how often is it a one on one draw?
More like a group of people with multiple weapons vs. you and your gun.
Or as some Americans like to imagine the government turning against them. US militia vs. you and your gun.
Who is going to win?
Maybe I'm just a cynic.0 -
That's the reason I don't really care about the so-called assault weapon ban. I'd guess the numbers for suicides are even more skewed to handguns.
My guess is that the assault weapon ban will die, in exchange for universal background checks.
The problem with the assualt weapon ban is that it refers to semi automatic weapons. Most handguns and shotguns are semi automatic. Also, most hunting rifles are semi automatic . I like to hunt! Atleast I still have a bow, until that gets outlawed!0 -
Where did you get that figure from? The article quotes no sources.
Where did I get the figure from? The article I linked to obviously. But I don't think that's what you meant to ask. The number is all around; the source is apparently a study from 1997. As I said, good numbers are hard to find, especially since the gun lobby is afraid of facts and has outlawed research.Bloomberg’s office pointed us to a 1997 study by the National Institute of Justice on who owns guns and how they use them.The researchers estimated that about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed dealers. They based their conclusion on data from a 1994 survey of more than 2,500 households. But it’s important to note that of the 2,568 households surveyed, only 251 people answered the question about the origin of their gun.
We asked Philip Cook, a Duke University professor who co-authored the study, if he thinks that 40 percent estimate -- which is now more than 15 years old -- is still a current, reliable estimate of secondary market gun sales.
"The answer is I have no idea," Cook said. "This survey was done almost 20 years ago. … It’s clear there are a lot of transactions that are not through dealers. How many, we’re not really clear on it. … We would say it’s a very old number."
Other scholars had similar views. Paul Blackman is a retired criminologist and former research coordinator for the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. "Personally, I think your safest bet is to say that no one knows, but that the vast majority of crime guns come from some other source than gun shows," he told us.
On the other hand, not much has changed in the gun market in the past two decades.
"It’s a fairly stable market. That is to say, gun stores have had their part, police supply stores have had their part, and then there are the gun shows and private dealings about which we know very little," said Robert McCrie, of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "There’s the knowledge that the market has been more vigorous and probably that higher vigor has been reflected in gun shows and private sales in tandem."
McCrie said, "The 40 percent seems about right."
Gary Kleck, whose research has provided the foundation for less restrictive concealed carry laws, told PolitiFact the 40 percent estimate is "probably still reasonably valid today."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/0 -
Where did you get that figure from? The article quotes no sources.
Where did I get the figure from? The article I linked to obviously. But I don't think that's what you meant to ask. The number is all around; the source is apparently a study from 1997. As I said, good numbers are hard to find, especially since the gun lobby is afraid of facts and has outlawed research.Bloomberg’s office pointed us to a 1997 study by the National Institute of Justice on who owns guns and how they use them.The researchers estimated that about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed dealers. They based their conclusion on data from a 1994 survey of more than 2,500 households. But it’s important to note that of the 2,568 households surveyed, only 251 people answered the question about the origin of their gun.
We asked Philip Cook, a Duke University professor who co-authored the study, if he thinks that 40 percent estimate -- which is now more than 15 years old -- is still a current, reliable estimate of secondary market gun sales.
"The answer is I have no idea," Cook said. "This survey was done almost 20 years ago. … It’s clear there are a lot of transactions that are not through dealers. How many, we’re not really clear on it. … We would say it’s a very old number."
Other scholars had similar views. Paul Blackman is a retired criminologist and former research coordinator for the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. "Personally, I think your safest bet is to say that no one knows, but that the vast majority of crime guns come from some other source than gun shows," he told us.
On the other hand, not much has changed in the gun market in the past two decades.
"It’s a fairly stable market. That is to say, gun stores have had their part, police supply stores have had their part, and then there are the gun shows and private dealings about which we know very little," said Robert McCrie, of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "There’s the knowledge that the market has been more vigorous and probably that higher vigor has been reflected in gun shows and private sales in tandem."
McCrie said, "The 40 percent seems about right."
Gary Kleck, whose research has provided the foundation for less restrictive concealed carry laws, told PolitiFact the 40 percent estimate is "probably still reasonably valid today."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/
What if they would have sent the survey to 2,500 different households that bought their guns from a gun dealer? Bad thing about surveys is you can make them say anything you want!0 -
Life doesn't seem to work that way though. Sure, you'd like to be armed in an old timey Western stand-off. But how often is it a one on one draw?
More like a group of people with multiple weapons vs. you and your gun.
Or as some Americans like to imagine the government turning against them. US militia vs. you and your gun.
Who is going to win?
Thinking that something is futile does not give you or anyone the right to revoke another's ability to try to overcome the challenge. If I'm getting attacked by 'multiple people with weapons' I'd much rather have a gun. Similarly if the US gov't declares martial law and becomes a totalitarian state, I'd also much rather have a gun than not.
I'm unfamiliar with these bans against research, please clarify. Additionally what you posted basically says 'we have no f***ing clue'. That doesn't mean 40% (and it doesn't mean less than 40%). It means 'we have no f***ing clue'. Less than 10% response rate 20+ years ago doesn't make a statistic worth noting.As I said, good numbers are hard to find, especially since the gun lobby is afraid of facts and has outlawed research.0 -
I should have said outlawed federal funding of research. I let my rhetoric get ahead of the facts.The characteristics of gun violence in the U.S. are largely unknown because key federal health agencies have been banned from conducting such research since the mid-1990s.
President Obama, however, wants to change that.
In presenting his plan to reduce gun violence last month, Obama said he would order the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to resume scientific studies of the issue.
"We don't benefit from ignorance," he said.
On Monday, however, the president acknowledged in a speech to the Minneapolis Police Department that he might be in for a fight. "Because for a long time, even looking at the evidence was considered somehow tough politics," he said.
Indeed, opponents on Capitol Hill are already making their concerns heard.
"Gun violence is not a disease," Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a recent speech on the Senate floor. "And lawful gun ownership is not a disease. It is a constitutionally protected, individual right."
But gun researchers say it is long past time that the research resumes.
"We really don't know some of the answers to the critical questions we need to know about [gun violence] in order to have more effective law enforcement and more effective public policy," says Harold Pollack, co-director of the Crime Lab at the University of Chicago.
At the lab, most research on things like underground gun markets and strategies to prevent gun violence has to be done with nonfederal funds. "There's been a chilling effect brought about [by] the constraints that the president spoke about and by the political history of this debate at CDC and elsewhere," Pollack says.
http://m.npr.org/news/front/170844926?start=50 -
I should have said outlawed federal funding of research. I let my rhetoric get ahead of the facts.
I am FULLY in favor of supporting increased research into the causes of gun violence, but there is an argument to be made about utilizing funding for the centers for disease control and prevention to do so. That is of course unless they're looking at it as a mental health issue (which I've advocated all along in this thread), in which case I think it's a good move.
The specific research you listed regarding the sources of illegally obtained firearms isn't something that should fall under the CDC though, at least not in my opinion.0 -
The 40% number had nothing to do with "illegally obtained firearms." It was a gross estimate of the percentage of legally obtained firearms where no background check was required.0
-
The 40% number had nothing to do with "illegally obtained firearms." It was a gross estimate of the percentage of legally obtained firearms where no background check was required.
I misread then, but I still believe the point stands, that's not under the scope of what the CDC does either way.0 -
I think I've said it before not sure if it was this thread or another, but saying it again, since it was just driven home to me by two dogs who damn near attacked me earlier and I can imagine what being attacked by a bear, cougar, or wolf pack might be like (yes I know wolf attacks are rare but they have happened, two fatalities in the last few years as I recall):
If I am hiking or camping in areas with grizzlies, wolves, or cougars I want the highest powered rifle possible. Period. Not to mention a 45 in case I can't bring the rifle around fast enough. Screw the bear spray, screw hiking with a buddy (almost any buddy can outrun me anyway), screw making a lot of noise when hiking. I want firepower.0 -
The problem with the assualt weapon ban is that it refers to semi automatic weapons. Most handguns and shotguns are semi automatic. Also, most hunting rifles are semi automatic . I like to hunt! Atleast I still have a bow, until that gets outlawed!
Not all semi-automatics are covered by the proposed ban. Only those with "military" features.The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:
* All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
* All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
* All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
* All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
* All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
* 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).
The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:
* Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;
* Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
* Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
* Antique weapons.
The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:
* The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary0 -
Noah Pozner, 6 years old, was the youngest of the Sandy Hook shooting victims. He was shot 11 times. His mother, Veronique, insisted on viewing his body at the funeral home.I owed it to him as his mother: the good, the bad, the ugly...It is not up to me to say I am only going to look at you and deal with you when you are alive, that I am going to block out the reality of what you look like when you are dead. And, as a little boy, you have to go in the ground. If I am going to shut my eyes to that I am not his mother. I had to bear it. I had to do it.
Ms Pozner wanted Noah to be buried in a Jewish prayer shawl and with an "angel stone" in each hand. She placed the stone in his right hand, but his left one had been blown away. She made the funeral director promise to place the stone where his left hand would have been.
She then described his face:We all saw how beautiful he was. He had thick, shiny hair, beautiful long eyelashes that rested on his cheeks. He looked like he was sleeping. But the reality of it was under the cloth he had covering his mouth, there was no mouth left. His jaw was blown away.
I just want people to know the ugliness of it so we don't talk about it abstractly, like these little angels just went to heaven.
No, they were butchered.
They were brutalized.0 -
Noah Pozner, 6 years old, was the youngest of the Sandy Hook shooting victims. He was shot 11 times. His mother, Veronique, insisted on viewing his body at the funeral home.I owed it to him as his mother: the good, the bad, the ugly...It is not up to me to say I am only going to look at you and deal with you when you are alive, that I am going to block out the reality of what you look like when you are dead. And, as a little boy, you have to go in the ground. If I am going to shut my eyes to that I am not his mother. I had to bear it. I had to do it.
Ms Pozner wanted Noah to be buried in a Jewish prayer shawl and with an "angel stone" in each hand. She placed the stone in his right hand, but his left one had been blown away. She made the funeral director promise to place the stone where his left hand would have been.
She then described his face:We all saw how beautiful he was. He had thick, shiny hair, beautiful long eyelashes that rested on his cheeks. He looked like he was sleeping. But the reality of it was under the cloth he had covering his mouth, there was no mouth left. His jaw was blown away.
I just want people to know the ugliness of it so we don't talk about it abstractly, like these little angels just went to heaven.
No, they were butchered.
They were brutalized.
I understand the horror of that and how emotional it makes all of us. But a hand gun at close range would have done the same thing, a shotgun might have been worse.0 -
Noah Pozner, 6 years old, was the youngest of the Sandy Hook shooting victims. He was shot 11 times. His mother, Veronique, insisted on viewing his body at the funeral home.I owed it to him as his mother: the good, the bad, the ugly...It is not up to me to say I am only going to look at you and deal with you when you are alive, that I am going to block out the reality of what you look like when you are dead. And, as a little boy, you have to go in the ground. If I am going to shut my eyes to that I am not his mother. I had to bear it. I had to do it.
Ms Pozner wanted Noah to be buried in a Jewish prayer shawl and with an "angel stone" in each hand. She placed the stone in his right hand, but his left one had been blown away. She made the funeral director promise to place the stone where his left hand would have been.
She then described his face:We all saw how beautiful he was. He had thick, shiny hair, beautiful long eyelashes that rested on his cheeks. He looked like he was sleeping. But the reality of it was under the cloth he had covering his mouth, there was no mouth left. His jaw was blown away.
I just want people to know the ugliness of it so we don't talk about it abstractly, like these little angels just went to heaven.
No, they were butchered.
They were brutalized.
I understand the horror of that and how emotional it makes all of us. But a hand gun at close range would have done the same thing, a shotgun might have been worse.
The point is not to parse the various ways that different types of firearms can destroy the body of a 6 year old. Just a reminder that's it's not an esoteric argument.0 -
The point is not to parse the various ways that different types of firearms can destroy the body of a 6 year old. Just a reminder that's it's not an esoteric argument.
And until you can prove that specific legislation you are in favor of will in fact prevent tragedies like this, all you're doing is undermining the deaths of those children by taking advantage of what they went through to try to prove your point. You're fanning the flames of an already emotionally charged argument.
We're talking about an assault weapon ban, as I recall the only weapons used at Sandy Hook were pistols. This is my biggest contention with some of the arguments being pushed in this thread (and in general). If you want to use a devastating tragedy to further a cause then that's fine, but make sure that there's actually something valid to be done.
Columbine: GET RID OF ALL VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES
Sandy Hook: BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS
How about actually tackling the problem and facing the fact that this is an incredibly complex issue which cannot be solved with a list of 'bad' guns.
Mention was made of closing loopholes in gun sales and increasing accountability of gun sellers. I agree with that, but first there needs to be a standardization of gun regulation across the nation. RIght now I live in New York, I can drive an hour to PA and have TOTALLY different rules for buying a firearm. I don't think these regulations need to (or should) be comparable to the strictist in the country, but we need a baseline commonality between states.
Further I think mental health care in this country is in a VERY sorry state, and massive overhauls need to be made.
I think that those two issues need to be tackled with much higher priority than listing all the bad weapons in the world and why a 12 gauge is ok but a 12 gauge with a different handle means you want to go on a killing rampage.0 -
The point is not to parse the various ways that different types of firearms can destroy the body of a 6 year old. Just a reminder that's it's not an esoteric argument.
And until you can prove that specific legislation you are in favor of will in fact prevent tragedies like this, all you're doing is undermining the deaths of those children by taking advantage of what they went through to try to prove your point. You're fanning the flames of an already emotionally charged argument.
We're talking about an assault weapon ban, as I recall the only weapons used at Sandy Hook were pistols. This is my biggest contention with some of the arguments being pushed in this thread (and in general). If you want to use a devastating tragedy to further a cause then that's fine, but make sure that there's actually something valid to be done.
Columbine: GET RID OF ALL VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES
Sandy Hook: BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS
How about actually tackling the problem and facing the fact that this is an incredibly complex issue which cannot be solved with a list of 'bad' guns.
Mention was made of closing loopholes in gun sales and increasing accountability of gun sellers. I agree with that, but first there needs to be a standardization of gun regulation across the nation. RIght now I live in New York, I can drive an hour to PA and have TOTALLY different rules for buying a firearm. I don't think these regulations need to (or should) be comparable to the strictist in the country, but we need a baseline commonality between states.
Further I think mental health care in this country is in a VERY sorry state, and massive overhauls need to be made.
I think that those two issues need to be tackled with much higher priority than listing all the bad weapons in the world and why a 12 gauge is ok but a 12 gauge with a different handle means you want to go on a killing rampage.
I will just point out that a legal AR15 was used at Sandy Hook. CT already has an assault weapon ban. A federal assault weapon ban would not remove that gun from circulation. In addition, a federal assault weapon ban was in effect when Columbine happened.
Banning assault weapon will do nothing to curb gun violence. It is just a way for lawmakers to appear to be doing something. If they want to curb gun violence they need to ban handguns. Good luck with that!0 -
You have a different definition of "curb" than me, I guess. To me it means "reduce." Apparently to you it means "eliminate." No legislation is going to eliminate gun violence. Some measures on the table will probably reduce gun violence.
Eschew the excluded middle.0 -
You have a different definition of "curb" than me, I guess. To me it means "reduce." Apparently to you it means "eliminate." No legislation is going to eliminate gun violence. Some measures on the table will probably reduce gun violence.
Eschew the excluded middle.
Prove it. If you're going to phrase your argument in that way at least have something to back it up that's a bit more solid than a 20 year old study that doesn't hold weight.0 -
The point is not to parse the various ways that different types of firearms can destroy the body of a 6 year old. Just a reminder that's it's not an esoteric argument.
And until you can prove that specific legislation you are in favor of will in fact prevent tragedies like this, all you're doing is undermining the deaths of those children by taking advantage of what they went through to try to prove your point. You're fanning the flames of an already emotionally charged argument.
We're talking about an assault weapon ban, as I recall the only weapons used at Sandy Hook were pistols. This is my biggest contention with some of the arguments being pushed in this thread (and in general). If you want to use a devastating tragedy to further a cause then that's fine, but make sure that there's actually something valid to be done.
Columbine: GET RID OF ALL VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES
Sandy Hook: BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS
How about actually tackling the problem and facing the fact that this is an incredibly complex issue which cannot be solved with a list of 'bad' guns.
Mention was made of closing loopholes in gun sales and increasing accountability of gun sellers. I agree with that, but first there needs to be a standardization of gun regulation across the nation. RIght now I live in New York, I can drive an hour to PA and have TOTALLY different rules for buying a firearm. I don't think these regulations need to (or should) be comparable to the strictist in the country, but we need a baseline commonality between states.
Further I think mental health care in this country is in a VERY sorry state, and massive overhauls need to be made.
I think that those two issues need to be tackled with much higher priority than listing all the bad weapons in the world and why a 12 gauge is ok but a 12 gauge with a different handle means you want to go on a killing rampage.
I will just point out that a legal AR15 was used at Sandy Hook. CT already has an assault weapon ban. A federal assault weapon ban would not remove that gun from circulation. In addition, a federal assault weapon ban was in effect when Columbine happened.
Banning assault weapon will do nothing to curb gun violence. It is just a way for lawmakers to appear to be doing something. If they want to curb gun violence they need to ban handguns. Good luck with that!
With all the conflicting reports I do not believe anyone can say what was used at Sandy Hook! I do know I watched pollice officers pulling the AR-15 out of the trunk of the shooters car AFTER the shooting. There also was initial reports on CNN that it was 2 hand guns.0
