Live by the gun, die by the gun!!

[Skeptikosia]

I keep waiting for one of these "studies" to include the statistics specifically related to lawful ownership instead of including criminal on criminal violence.

Why? Gun crime seems relevent in a debate about gun control

Because I believe that if the two issues were shown separately then people would see how the issue of gun legislation is a sham.

Surely you are not suggesting that there should be zero "gun legislation"?

Lawful weapon owners don't go around shooting people as a rule, but when you lump lawful gun owners in with thugtards and their usual douchebaggery it throws the whole sample in the shitter.

Lawful weapon owners does not necessarily mean that they are responsible weapon owners, and some "lawful weapon owners" DO "go around shooting people", some of them mass murder style.

Calm yourself Beavis. See my post above.

And yes, some lawful owners break that law. That's why the perpetrators should be punished. We can't punish pre-crime.

To take away a person's choice as to how they would protect themselves puts the government in the ethical position of being responsible for the well being of those people, and unfortunately the SCOTUS has ruled that LE and EMS cannot be held accountable for a lack of action.

[Neu California]

I keep waiting for one of these "studies" to include the statistics specifically related to lawful ownership instead of including criminal on criminal violence.

Why? Gun crime seems relevent in a debate about gun control

Because I believe that if the two issues were shown separately then people would see how the issue of gun legislation is a sham.

Surely you are not suggesting that there should be zero "gun legislation"?

Lawful weapon owners don't go around shooting people as a rule, but when you lump lawful gun owners in with thugtards and their usual douchebaggery it throws the whole sample in the shitter.

Lawful weapon owners does not necessarily mean that they are responsible weapon owners, and some "lawful weapon owners" DO "go around shooting people", some of them mass murder style.

Calm yourself Beavis. See my post above.

And yes, some lawful owners break that law. That's why the perpetrators should be punished. We can't punish pre-crime.

To take away a person's choice as to how they would protect themselves puts the government in the ethical position of being responsible for the well being of those people, and unfortunately the SCOTUS has ruled that LE and EMS cannot be held accountable for a lack of action.

Which court case was that?

[Bluth Corporation]

Not even close man. Not even close.

Actually, I'm spot on.

[Neu California]

Not even close man. Not even close.

Actually, I'm spot on.

[citation needed]

[LOL ANARCHY NUBZ]

Not even close man. Not even close.

Actually, I'm spot on.

No. For one, they owned slaves, who count as part of "everyone."

[Skeptikosia]

I keep waiting for one of these "studies" to include the statistics specifically related to lawful ownership instead of including criminal on criminal violence.

Why? Gun crime seems relevent in a debate about gun control

Because I believe that if the two issues were shown separately then people would see how the issue of gun legislation is a sham.

Surely you are not suggesting that there should be zero "gun legislation"?

Lawful weapon owners don't go around shooting people as a rule, but when you lump lawful gun owners in with thugtards and their usual douchebaggery it throws the whole sample in the shitter.

Lawful weapon owners does not necessarily mean that they are responsible weapon owners, and some "lawful weapon owners" DO "go around shooting people", some of them mass murder style.

Calm yourself Beavis. See my post above.

And yes, some lawful owners break that law. That's why the perpetrators should be punished. We can't punish pre-crime.

To take away a person's choice as to how they would protect themselves puts the government in the ethical position of being responsible for the well being of those people, and unfortunately the SCOTUS has ruled that LE and EMS cannot be held accountable for a lack of action.

Which court case was that?

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away, and even if they do they have no affirmative duty to protect.

Castle Rock v Gonzales

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

Warren v District of Columbia

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.[2]

Ford v Grafton

A negligence claim brought against a town pursuant to G. L. c. 258, for a police department's repeated disregard of its responsibility to protect the plaintiff from her former husband against whom she had a G. L. c. 209A restraining order, was barred by the provisions of G. L. c. 258, s. 20(h) and (j), as amended by St. 1993, c. 495, s. 57, where the protective order did not constitute a specific and explicit assurance of safety within the meaning of s. 10(j)(1) [723-725]; where the exception under s. 10(j)(2) did not apply [725]; and where G. L. c. 209A contained no language that could create a cause of action under the saving clause of G. L. c. 258, s. 10 [725-726].

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

In 1980, a divorce court in Wyoming gave custody of Joshua DeShaney, born in 1979, to his father Randy DeShaney, who moved to Winnebago County, Wisconsin. A police report of child abuse and a hospital visit in January, 1983, prompted the county Department of Social Services (DSS) to obtain a court order to keep the boy in the hospital's custody. Three days later, "On the recommendation of a "child protection team," consisting of a pediatrician, a psychologist, a police detective, the county's lawyer, several DSS caseworkers, and various hospital personnel, the juvenile court dismissed the case and returned the boy to the custody of his father."[1] The DSS entered an agreement with the boy's father, and five times throughout 1983, a DSS social worker visited the DeShaney home and recorded suspicion of child abuse and that the father was not complying with the agreement's terms. No action was taken; the DSS also took no action to remove the boy from his father's custody after a hospital reported child abuse suspicions to them in November, 1983.[2]. Visits in January and March, 1984, in which the worker was told Joshua was too ill to see her, also resulted in no action. Following the March, 1984, visit, "Randy DeShaney beat 4-year-old Joshua so severely that he fell into a life-threatening coma. Emergency brain surgery revealed a series of hemorrhages caused by traumatic injuries to the head inflicted over a long period of time. Joshua did not die, but he suffered brain damage so severe that he is expected to spend the rest of his life confined to an institution for the profoundly retarded. Randy DeShaney was subsequently tried and convicted of child abuse."[3] Randy DeShaney served less than two years in jail. He currently resides in Appleton, WI.

[CanuckHeaven]

I keep waiting for one of these "studies" to include the statistics specifically related to lawful ownership instead of including criminal on criminal violence.

Why? Gun crime seems relevent in a debate about gun control

Because I believe that if the two issues were shown separately then people would see how the issue of gun legislation is a sham.

Surely you are not suggesting that there should be zero "gun legislation"?

Lawful weapon owners don't go around shooting people as a rule, but when you lump lawful gun owners in with thugtards and their usual douchebaggery it throws the whole sample in the shitter.

Lawful weapon owners does not necessarily mean that they are responsible weapon owners, and some "lawful weapon owners" DO "go around shooting people", some of them mass murder style.

Calm yourself Beavis. See my post above.

If I am Beavis, you must be Butthead?

And yes, some lawful owners break that law. That's why the perpetrators should be punished. We can't punish pre-crime.

To take away a person's choice as to how they would protect themselves puts the government in the ethical position of being responsible for the well being of those people, and unfortunately the SCOTUS has ruled that LE and EMS cannot be held accountable for a lack of action.

Did I say anything about banning firearms? NO!!

Now perhaps you should answer the main question that I asked you:

Surely you are not suggesting that there should be zero "gun legislation"?

[Skeptikosia]

Now perhaps you should answer the main question that I asked you:

Surely you are not suggesting that there should be zero "gun legislation"?

No, I'm not, but I think that the standard of ownership should be the same as the standard in our justice system.

Innocent until proven guilty.

The laws should reflect the idea that unless you give society a valid reason to worry about your behavior you should be left alone.

[SaintB]

Its getting tiring when someone keeps bringing up stories about one mentally fucked up person who has a gun uses it and says thats a reason to get rid of them all when they could have used almost anything else. I totally agree that more controls should be in place but not an outright ban.

[Saint Jade IV]

A gun is only a tool, an efficent tool to be sure, but still a tool.

It is people who kill. The vast majority of legaly owned gun use is for sport and self defense. It is rare beyond mesure for a legal gun to be used for illegal purposes.


This brings to mind a story I read about Northern Ireland. I don't live there but the story was about how pretty much everything has been made illegal, even BB guns and painball guns. The story was about the next layer of laws being proposed to make "glass" glasses illegal in public places because in the absense of other weapons, it was normal for the people of NI to break these glasses and attack each other.

This is happening in my home state as well, due to a supposed increase in glassings. No longer will clubs that have 5 am licences be able to serve any glass on premises, and it will slowly be introduced throughout the state. It has been in place for a while in sporting events here.

[The Norse Hordes]

Not even close man. Not even close.

Actually, I'm spot on.

You might as well hang a big sign around your neck saying "I havent read any original documents written by any of the founding fathers."

[Skeptikosia]

...

Where'd you go?

[Bluth Corporation]

Because I believe that if the two issues were shown separately then people would see how the issue of gun legislation is a sham.

Surely you are not suggesting that there should be zero "gun legislation"?

I don't know if he is, but I certainly am.

[Neo Art]

Because I believe that if the two issues were shown separately then people would see how the issue of gun legislation is a sham.

Surely you are not suggesting that there should be zero "gun legislation"?

I don't know if he is, but I certainly am.

your suggestions are illegitamate.

[Greed and Death]

well wear a gun to a child's soccer game does point to mental instability.

[Andaluciae]

Packing heat to a kids soccer practice is not, under any conceivable set of circumstances, responsible gun ownership. Unless, of course, Deepcrows infest the soccer field.

In which case you ought best just avoid the soccer field.

[Czardas]

Packing heat to a kids soccer practice is not, under any conceivable set of circumstances, responsible gun ownership. Unless, of course, Deepcrows infest the soccer field.

In which case you ought best just avoid the soccer field.

Hi Andaluciae. Long time no see.

[Andaluciae]

Packing heat to a kids soccer practice is not, under any conceivable set of circumstances, responsible gun ownership. Unless, of course, Deepcrows infest the soccer field.

In which case you ought best just avoid the soccer field.

Hi Andaluciae. Long time no see.

Still kind of wobbling around this place from time to time. This past summer was just too nice to spend much time indoors, though.

[Icezealand]

Packing heat to a kids soccer practice is not, under any conceivable set of circumstances, responsible gun ownership. Unless, of course, Deepcrows infest the soccer field.

In which case you ought best just avoid the soccer field.

On the article, I agree, this lady was out of her mind.

On the point of the OP, I don't think the story is grounds to assume all gun owners are as irresponsible and/or insane as this chick. There's always going to be some nuts out there, and until you outlaw forks, bricks, and hands, people are going to be victimized now and then.

[Flameswroth]

The title of this thread reminds me of the scene from the 1956 movie "The Ten Commandments", where Moses (played by Charleton Heston) says, "Those who will not live by the law, shall die by the law!". He then casts down the two tablets he received, destroying their graven idle and consuming half of the Israelites in the earth.

Coincidentally, Heston was president of the NRA as well, which makes a nice tie-in to the thread. I hope this hasn't been pointed out already.

What'd I do?

He he, that made me smile.

[Skeptikosia]

well wear a gun to a child's soccer game does point to mental instability.

How so?

[Skeptikosia]

Because I believe that if the two issues were shown separately then people would see how the issue of gun legislation is a sham.

Surely you are not suggesting that there should be zero "gun legislation"?

I don't know if he is, but I certainly am.

your suggestions are illegitamate.

My preferred restrictions are post-behavioral. But that's about it.

Act up and you get your toys taken away.

[Mando-ade]

well wear a gun to a child's soccer game does point to mental instability.

How so?

Yeah, maybe she just carried it everywhere.

[Peepelonia]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

[Pedoka]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

Does that figure classify active duty soldiers as part of the "gun carrier" demographic in order to have the outcome match their liberal agenda?