The right to bear arms

1679111218

Replies

  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    I do indeed find it a bit hypocritical when those that would like to heavily restrict and perhaps even outright ban, as well as, confiscate firearms hire armed guards...

    I haven't seen anything saying this newspaper supports banning or confiscating firearms. If you have, please show it to me. Thanks!
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    Just to be clear, I don't believe the Journal News was wise to use their first amendment rights in the way they did. But that's a different issue than whether they are hypocritical to hire armed guards after receiving death threats.
  • k8blujay2
    k8blujay2 Posts: 4,941 Member
    I do indeed find it a bit hypocritical when those that would like to heavily restrict and perhaps even outright ban, as well as, confiscate firearms hire armed guards...

    I haven't seen anything saying this newspaper supports banning or confiscating firearms. If you have, please show it to me. Thanks!

    Perhaps the newspaper doesn't (though I am most certianly inferring that they do or some variation), but my comment can be made in a general sense as well....

    and I find their article that accompanied the map, HIGHLY contrary (not sure if that's the word I want... but I will go with it until I find a better one) as it quotes quite a few professionals that it would be dangerous to make the information public (without obtaining a records request) and why it would be so... yet they did it anyway... they did it without any concern of the people in those households. If you want to know who owns a gun in your neighborhood or potential neighborhood, then by all means take your happy *kitten* to city hall with a FOIA request form... but then people are too damned lazy to do so... just like they are too damned lazy to find out if their house is on a floodplain or if it has had permits on that addition that makes the house bigger than the listing says it is...
  • k8blujay2
    k8blujay2 Posts: 4,941 Member
    By the way, I am using "you" in a general sense.... even if I am replying to a qoute.... unless I type the user name out... then it ends when I leave a space between paragraphs... just to be clear as I know I can look accusatory.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    If you want to know who owns a gun in your neighborhood or potential neighborhood, then by all means take your happy *kitten* to city hall with a FOIA request form... but then people are too damned lazy to do so... just like they are too damned lazy to find out if their house is on a floodplain or if it has had permits on that addition that makes the house bigger than the listing says it is...

    The information that is publicly available in New York state is not who owns a gun but who has a pistol permit. Long gun information is not available, period. And I'm sure there is not a one-to-one correspondence between who has a pistol permit and who has a pistol. There are both unpermitted pistols and permit holders with no pistol.

    In my opinion, that makes the data published less useful and therefore less worthy of publishing.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    I do indeed find it a bit hypocritical when those that would like to heavily restrict and perhaps even outright ban, as well as, confiscate firearms hire armed guards...

    I haven't seen anything saying this newspaper supports banning or confiscating firearms. If you have, please show it to me. Thanks!

    Perhaps the newspaper doesn't (though I am most certianly inferring that they do or some variation), but my comment can be made in a general sense as well....

    I'm not following you. Surely only the newspaper's actions are important in determining whether they are hypocritical. If person A calls for a total gun ban, then it says absolutely about person B's good faith when person B responds to death threats by hiring an armed guard. I have no idea what "general sense" you are talking about.
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    I do indeed find it a bit hypocritical when those that would like to heavily restrict and perhaps even outright ban, as well as, confiscate firearms hire armed guards...

    I haven't seen anything saying this newspaper supports banning or confiscating firearms. If you have, please show it to me. Thanks!

    their editorials and past stances are heavily anti gun and pro restriction. and I say this as a journalist.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    Anti-gun and pro-restriction to the point of saying that someone receiving death threats shouldn't have the option of arming themselves? I've seen nothing like that in their editorials. The closest I've seen is a call for reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that lapsed in 2004. As long as their armed guards don't have assault weapons, I don't see the hypocrisy.

    Unless one fallaciously assumes that anyone calling for any changes in gun laws is calling for a ban on all private ownership of guns.
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    there were no death threats. police investigated the email that concerned her, and they said they "did not constitute an offense” and did not contain an actual threat.

    and their position has always been very strict gun control, with the reasoning that the police are there to protect us. so, if that's the case, hiring a private, gun-toting security guard shouldn't be necessary.
  • marsellient
    marsellient Posts: 591 Member

    FBMandy55 is referring to Kitty Werthmann, an Austrian-American who leads the South Dakota "Eagle Forum." The Eagle Forum is a right wing American political group that fights against twentieth-century progress like equal rights for women. She is not a "Holocaust Survivor," as that term is usually used since she wasn't ever sent to a concentration camp. This is typical of the stuff she spouts at "tea party" gatherings.
    "What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or read in history books,” she likes to tell audiences.
    "I am a witness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We voted him in."

    If you remember the plot of the Sound of Music, the Von Trapp family escaped over the Alps rather than submit to the Nazis. Kitty wasn’t so lucky. Her family chose to stay in her native Austria. She was 10 years old, but bright and aware. And she was watching.

    “We elected him by a landslide – 98 percent of the vote,” she recalls. She wasn’t old enough to vote in 1938 – approaching her 11th birthday. But she remembers. “Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.”

    Not so.

    http://www.tennesseesonsofliberty.com/2013/01/kitty-werthmann-survived-hitler-and.html

    She was a witness to history but she either has a bad memory or has a 10-year-old's understanding of what she lived through.

    Austria was set to hold a referendum on union with Hitler's Germany, which probably would have been rejected. Rather than let that happen, the Austrian Nazi party staged a coup d'etat and Hitler "just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force," meeting no resistance. After the invasion, the Nazis held a sham election which they claimed to win by 99.7%.

    Werthmann's speech is typical right wing hyperbole. The things that brought Hitler to power just happen to be the same things Phylis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum oppose.

    Ah...thanks for providing the background! I figured it had to be something of the sort, but not being in the US, this charming lady and her misrepresentation of history are unfamiliar to me.

    I thank you, too, treetop. I was curious where this could have come from. All makes sense now.
  • Laces_0ut
    Laces_0ut Posts: 3,750 Member
    having a gun may have saved this woman and her children's lives.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812
  • lour441
    lour441 Posts: 543 Member
    having a gun may have saved this woman and her children's lives.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812

    He will turn around and sue her.
  • 5stringjeff
    5stringjeff Posts: 790 Member
    having a gun may have saved this woman and her children's lives.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812

    He will turn around and sue her.

    In Georgia? Extremely unlikely. The guy got what he deserved.
  • lour441
    lour441 Posts: 543 Member
    having a gun may have saved this woman and her children's lives.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812

    He will turn around and sue her.

    In Georgia? Extremely unlikely. The guy got what he deserved.

    Oh that is true. This is not California!
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    As long as we're playing argument by anecdote . . . this idiot could have killed someone.
    Dropped gun fires at Silverdale store; no injuries
    Published 12:36 pm, Sunday, January 6, 2013

    SILVERDALE, Wash. (AP) — A gun went off inside a Kitsap County store after a man dropped it, but no one was injured.

    The Kitsap Sun reports (http://is.gd/xPrA51 ) that a 58-year-old Poulsbo man told deputies he had removed the .38-caliber, two-shot Derringer pistol from a holster on his belt before he entered the Cost Plus World Market in Silverdale on Saturday afternoon.

    He put the gun in a coat pocket, but when he was in the middle of the store, he bent over — and the pistol fell out and discharged. . . .

    Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Dropped-gun-fires-at-Silverdale-store-no-injuries-4171173.php#ixzz2HPpQgtap
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    Nothing I have ever read says that the benefit of having a gun in my home for self-defense is worth the greater risk of homicide, suicide, or death by accidental discharge.
    For example, Kellermann et al. (13, 14) examined the relation between gun ownership and injury outcomes. After they controlled for a number of potentially confounding factors, the presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio = 4.8) (13) and an almost threefold risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio = 2.7) (14). Other case-control studies have also found an increased risk of suicide for those with firearms in the home, with relative risks ranging from 2.1 to 4.4 (15–19).

    . . . .

    The findings of this study add to the body of research showing an association between guns in the home and risk of a violent death. Those persons with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to other causes of death. This finding was particularly the case for males, who in general have higher rates of completed suicide than females do. The findings showing an increased risk of homicide in homes with guns are also consistent with previous research (14, 20, 23, 24), although, when compared with suicide, are not as strong. Studies that have examined the risk of either violent victimization or perpetration at the individual level show relative risks between 1.4 and 2.7 (14, 20, 23, 24). Our findings are also in this range.

    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    Nothing I have ever read says that the benefit of having a gun in my home for self-defense is worth the greater risk of homicide, suicide, or death by accidental discharge.
    For example, Kellermann et al. (13, 14) examined the relation between gun ownership and injury outcomes. After they controlled for a number of potentially confounding factors, the presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio = 4.8) (13) and an almost threefold risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio = 2.7) (14). Other case-control studies have also found an increased risk of suicide for those with firearms in the home, with relative risks ranging from 2.1 to 4.4 (15–19).

    . . . .

    The findings of this study add to the body of research showing an association between guns in the home and risk of a violent death. Those persons with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to other causes of death. This finding was particularly the case for males, who in general have higher rates of completed suicide than females do. The findings showing an increased risk of homicide in homes with guns are also consistent with previous research (14, 20, 23, 24), although, when compared with suicide, are not as strong. Studies that have examined the risk of either violent victimization or perpetration at the individual level show relative risks between 1.4 and 2.7 (14, 20, 23, 24). Our findings are also in this range.

    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

    correlation != causation
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    As discussed in the link.
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    As discussed in the link.

    I read it, all I saw is two things:
    There's an association between gun deaths and having a gun in the home
    Suicides are more often successful if you have a gun in the home

    If they were able to prove that violent deaths are caused by gun ownership, they would've said so.