What I see as important here is that it is 66% of battered women situations involved a firearm. (again, no mention of whether it was legally owned or not)

It does not say that 66% of firearm owners batter women.

You may not like firearms and that is ok. I don't like broccoli and would rather die than eat it, but I promise I won't try to make it harder for you to have it if you like it.

Why couldn't you get a gun? You could still have a shot gun or a .22. Both would do the job if you needed a job done.

I am certain that if someone or something threatened my family and I had a gun within arms reach, I wouldn't think twice. (fortunately for any potential criminals I don't have a gun)

How about Broccoli Raab? Is it all Cruciferous vegetables?

Meh. I googled home invasion statistics, and the first several pages were scare tactic sites by insurance and security companies. It's just another boogy man tactic for taking your money.

I hope you're not characterizing me that way.

Apparently - see above.

I bought firearms (a .22 and a shotgun) to protect my garden from woodchucks, skunks, possums, rabbits, and deer.

I also (attempted) to use my guns to put meat on the table. (If god had wanted us to be vegetarian then why did he make animals out of meat?) Because I keep my guns and ammo locked up they would prove unhandy in the event of an intruder. I'd probably just rely on the old fashioned heavy bedside lamp and sock full of quarters.

I didn't say there's only one reason to own a gun.

Yes F3, you are correct.
I misinterpreted the wording of the abstract, and I apologize.
Below is the abstract, along with the associated paragraph in the full article.

In the Abstract:
In the full text of the publication

That last part is very interesting as well. Add some "liquid asshole" to the equation and things get out of hand.

The whole topic is horribly depressing.

Why? Umm, the law, you know?

I haven't actually checked this out, just what I've picked up over the years, but I'm pretty sure you can only have a gun if:
you're a licensed security guard
you're a licensed professional shooter
you're a rural landowner who can demonstrate a need to control vermin
you're a member of a sporting target shooting club that shoots to olympic standard
you're a member of a licensed hunting organisation.

Home defense is explicitly NOT a lawful reason to have a gun.

I don't come anywhere near any of those categories.

I not really sure about any of that, it is just what I remember from the changes brought in after the Port Aurthur Massacre. (For teh Merkins, in 1996 a crazy guy went really really crazy and killed 35 people in Tasmania. After that we put a lot of restrictions on semi-automatics, pump-action shotguns, and magazine size. We also made it against the law for crazy people to have guns.)

We haven't been genocided yet. ;)

Anyone can still go get a gun as long as it's not automatic in any way. You might tell them it's to keep the rabbits out (or some such thing). You're just not permitted to fire a gun in an urban area, except at a rifle range/shooting club, and they're usually on the fringes anyway.

There would be restrictions if you'd been convicted of a crime, especially one involving a weapon.

I'm sure there are other restrictions, but none that would stop an average law abiding citizen from owning a gun, provided they had the required storage facilities for said gun.

I just checked on the Qld gun laws and you don't have to be a landowner to own a gun to use for shooting pests, but you do have to have permission from a landowner (over 40 acres) for the purposes of shooting to prove your eligibility for a gun license.

Thought I'd check just to make sure I wasn't speaking out of my arse. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

Hey, that didn't stop me. :D

Oh and yeah, all guns must be stored in locked gun safes.
There was a move a while back to make sporting target shooters store their guns at the gun club, not in their homes, but I think that didn't go through, because it would be such a tempting target for thieves.

I wouldn't worry too much about being uninformed on this one. Most people from the city don't get out to the country that much anyway, and when they do, it's not usually for the purpose of shooting stuff.

To all intents and purposes, most people who live in urban areas probably would have trouble presenting a reason for owning a gun. I sometimes forget my family still has pretty strong rural ties, so people who own guns and use them are pretty common to me.

in my American Judicial Process class at the community college of vermont a couple weeks ago, we were dealing with a case where a 14 year old kid shot a man who was in their house to have sex with his bipolar, possibly schizophrenic, unmedicated mother who thought a family lived under their trailer and pulled out all the insulation, freezing their pipes and cutting off their running water. The kid said that the man had to leave because his mother didn't know what she was doing and couldn't consent, the man didn't, the kid brandished his shotgun, the man attacked him, the kid shot him.
I raised the point that nobody questioned that a 14-year-old owned and kept his own shotgun.
The class just kind of went, um, yeah, its vermont, why the hell wouldn't a 14-year-old have his own shotgun?

That's the difference between CCV and Bennington College!

GD Genius you are.

Just don't try to regulate it! :)

Two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. We're not sure about the universe.

For "It is believed they were accidentally shot when they walked up a ridge and into the man's path as he was firing on an animal"
please read
"It is believed they were accidentally shot when the man fired on an animal too close to the ridge line without sufficient backstop. Dumbarse."

I have never owned a gun or gun license, and never fired anything bigger than an air rifle, but even I know this rule.

Were they wearing hoodies that might have made them look like trophy rabbits?

^^^FTW^^^

Seven more + three wounded by one gunman.

GO, go, go NRA

Fox News
April 03, 2012

Students hid as gunman opened fire small Christian school in California; 7 dead

About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States
GO, go, go UAW!

Lamp: would tighter gun laws have prevented that? How MUCH tighter? Assuming that a British style no-guns proposal would be unconstitutional, and barring repealing the second amendment... What do you propose as a solution?

To be honest, while most pro-gun arguments that assume "more people with guns means less crime!" don't quite check out 100% to me, mass shootings like this are one of the few cases where I definitely think that MORE gun ownership would limit the casualties in massacre situations.

Gun crime is tied to gun culture, not number of guns. In some areas, more guns means more deaths. In some areas, more guns means less deaths.

My short answer is: Yes, tighter gun laws could prevent that sort of massacre.
What do I propose as a solution ? That's a longer discussion.

I've invited the so-called pro-gun Dwellars to answer the same sort of question
and not surprisingly there's been no response.
They know this sort of thing is happening, but choose to do/say nothing about it.

That's not surprising because right now the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is to their favor.
The NRA is running with it, and lobbying feverishly to pass their manly "Stand Your Ground" laws.
Just the name of that law makes the weak feel strong. :rolleyes:

Personally, and contrary to what Lookout123 has assumed, I have no problem with guns, per se,
I have owned them since high school, and still have one.

As policy, I have no problem with guns used for hunting, either for meat or trophy
--- so long as the hunt is "fair chase".
As policy, I have no problem with guns (or CCL's) issued when the individual's job or
career presents a need for one, i.e., as an agent in busines that needs protection.
(e.g., as an agent for a bank or $-guard, body guard, criminal attorney, etc.)

I do have a problem with every Joe Blow citizen, like my next door neighbor, having a gun
just because he lives in fear that someone somewhere might do something he doesn't like.

I put the blame where the fault lies... with the ATA and the NRA.
It is my belief about the way things are going due to the current interpretation
of the 2nd Amendment, that society will eventually recognize that the argument
about "self defense" is fallacious, and the fact that guns are doing unjustifiable harm to individuals and to society, itself.

When that happens, the judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will change,
and guns be allowed in specific light of maintaining a well-regulated militia (e.g., National Guard)
only as necessary for the security of the free state, and not to feed the politics of the NRA.
.

Once again, fuzzy logic.

Do away with the UAW, and cars would still be made, and accidents would still happen at the same rates.
Do away with the NRA, and gun control laws would be passed, and the rate of killings would decrease,
... maybe even down to that of auto accidents.

:lol2:

My short answer is: Yes, tighter gun laws could prevent that sort of massacre.
What do I propose as a solution ? That's a longer discussion.

I've invited the so-called pro-gun Dwellars to answer the same sort of question
and not surprisingly there's been no response.
They know this sort of thing is happening, but choose to do/say nothing about it.

Lamplighter, to me there are two glaring reasons why the matters you're presenting haven't gotten the response you'd like:

1. First and foremost, we're 270 posts into this thread and YOU DIDN'T BRING ANY SNACKS!

2. Similar issues have been raised and done to death here before, prior to you joining the community (e.g. Will the Second Amendment survive?, 12-02-2007 to 01-06-2008, 22 pages, 326 posts). Many of the previous participants are still here. Some have chimed in this time around for various reasons including probing just to see where the newer members stand on the issues. Many are not getting involved to the same degree as before, if at all, and why should they? They're under no obligation to rehash their perspectives just to appease more recent members. Unless you've read through all of the previous topically related posts in all of the previous topically related threads, I believe the part of your quote I've put in bold does the membership an injustice.

But can you drive your Glock to work?

So you don't have a problem with guns. So long as it's the right kind, bought in the right place, and for the right purpose. Is that about right? Wait, who's definition of right are we going to use?

What's to answer? You see a massive problem, I don't. Tighter gun restrictions do nothing but make it harder for law abiding citizens, who have the right to own firearms to do so. You may have noticed that most crimes are committed by criminals. You know, those guys who don't really give a damn about the law anyway?

Universities are legislated gun-free zones. Mass shootings occur in schools and colleges mainly because there is little to no likelihood that anyone will be anything other than a victim.

There have been school/college shootings minimized by bystanders who went to their cars and came back with their legally owned weapons.

I recently attended a lecture in which an interesting fact was revealed ... there have been no school shootings in schools with an armed, uniformed, police officer on the premises. Is this true? I have not exhaustively researched this claim, so I don't actually know. The presenter, he researched it, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. If I find anything to back up that claim, I'll let you know.

ETA: Was replying to Lookout.

Ahh, if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns.

And police, security guards, and everyone else with a legitimate reason to have one.

It is very easy to slip from "only criminals" will have guns to "all criminals will have guns", but that doesn't follow.

In low-gun cultures like Australia, only the most serious, well connected criminals have guns. The majority of criminals can't get much more than a big stick, or a knife; and any crook with a gun can be arrested for it and have the weapon seized.

Of course, this couldn't work in the US because of the large amount of guns already in circulation.

We choose to have fewer guns, and pay the price of occasionally having the situation where a crazy dude goes on a rampage (sometimes with, often without, a gun) and no-one has a gun to stop him 'til the cops get there.

You choose to have more guns, and pay the price of having more accidental discharges, suicides, and petty criminals with guns; but when some #$%&-up goes on a rampage in, say, a subway outlet, there is a pretty good chance that someone with a CCL will be there to deal with it.

Personally, I prefer fewer guns, but I don't think the difference in outcomes is so big to make the decision obvious.

Culture, culture, culture.
Switzerland's gun ownership laws work pretty well for switzerland.
Australia's and the UK's gun ownership laws work pretty well for Australia and the UK.
America's works okay for America, but better in some places than others. Vermont has a good record with gun laws and outcomes. Large, poor cities have bad records with gun ownership, and fewer handguns overall works better than freer gun ownership there. Places like the south, they're more likely to be used in race-based encounters, but only because racial violence is more common in the south - and as the case of the boys in mississippi i think it was who pled guilty a few weeks ago, they used their car, not a gun. Gun ownership works okay in a lot of the south.
Where do you live, Lamp, and do you think the gun laws where you are work? Do they lead to too many "joe blow"s getting guns? Why should you be allowed to own the gun you own, but not your next-door neighbor? How should you have to prove that/how would you change the licensing system to fix that? Would that include long guns, or only handguns?

If one has a job... no.

If one has a job... no. Thanks for rubbing it in though. :cool:

@Ib
Oregon guns laws and the people that have them are, more than likely,
just like the other states and other people who have or who avoid guns.
The NRA has been lobbying here too, and we do have a version of "Stand Your Ground".

Yes, too many "Joe Blows" end up with guns.
We have just as many abusive men intimidating women,
just as many accidental or unintentional shootings,
and just as few home-invasions prevented by a homeowner's gun.

Oregon and Washington may be different in one respect.
We have had fishermen on the banks of rivers and streams who fired a gun
towards boaters passing thru "their water". :eek:
(P.S. I don't have a boat so don't anyone try to hang that one on me) ;)
We also have hunters do stupid things, such as "warning shots",
unintentional shootings, and accidents where someone has been shot or killed.

After submitting my post, I realized someone might put those two
sentences together, but it was too late to edit my post.
That was NOT intended.
With respect to me and my next-door neighbor, I am no different.
I have, but don't need, a gun... I'll give it anytime... that would not be an issue.

I'm not trying to get out of answering such questions.
But it's not up to me to prove my points by coming up with the "perfect solution".
I'll participate in such a discussion, but the "pro-gun" people need to think about the issues too.

Let me give just one example of gun-control which might save some misery and/or lives in a family household.
What if... ?
- A person could not legally purchase/obtain/possess a gun,
unless everyone in that household (continuously) agreed to it

Oh, come on.

That sounds eminently reasonable, except that it would be hard to deal with legally. That is to say, if I own my house, and happen to be letting you and your kids live in it also, and then you tell me to get rid of my gun cause you voted... you have no legal standing to demand that.

Who should be allowed to own guns? As few people as possible seems to be your answer. How do you respond to right-wing claims that gun ownership is the surest protection against tyranny? How would you ensure that the process to license a gun owner checks that they "require" the firearm? again, is this just for handguns, or long guns also? What about hunting? What about sport shooting, skeet shooting, target shooting? What should be done with guns already owned by people who would come off your list, and already in circulation on the black market or in gray, pseudo-regulated "gun shows" and other less-regulated markets?

As I said:

Short answer: If a law says that everyone living in the household must agree to the presence of guns, that gives them the legal standing.

Legitimate is the sticky part isn't it?

I didn't mean to say all criminals will have guns. In fact probably fewer criminals would have guns because they would be more scarce. The some criminals having them and zero law abiding citizens having them part is a given under your scenario though. Remember, the courts have already ruled that the police have no obligation to prevent crime, only investigate it after it has occured.

On the flip side of all that is a law restricting guns to law enforcement and military (even if it were constitutional) would have the effect of making people who are law abiding citizens into criminals because I can guarantee a large section of the populace will not turn them in peacefully.

Again, slowly it turns...

The Associated Press
WASHINGTON
April 5, 2012, 03:33 pm ET

Coca-Cola Ends Ties To Conservative Law Writers

Huffington Post
Dan Foomkin
4/5/12
American Legislative Exchange Council, Ultra-Conservative Lobby, Loses 2 Major Funders

That is a logistical impossibility.

When you've done some thinking about how to make a genocide not merely impracticable, but well-nigh unthinkable, post what it is you've found. A hint: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

I think you will find their argument about why you need an assault rifle and at least 200 rounds of ready ammo unanswerable.

You'd get extra people killed with that one. Yet somehow, the hoplophobe hasn't any philosophical problem with becoming an accessory before the fact. This is unconscionable, and hence must never be allowed. Heavens Tibet, Lampie: your right of self defense should be subject to blackballing? What madness is that? Is it even defensible?

You see, the gun people are on the side of the angels -- while the antigun are on the side of the State.

Really? That might be a thing you could look at changing too. And regardless of "obligation", I can't believe any (well, many) police would stand back and watch some thug on a rampage, wait until he's finished, then go and arrest him. They intervene in that, when they can.


We had that argument here during our gun buy-back. Maybe a few people kept their guns, but there hasn't been a significant issue with it. Different situation, of course.
Of course, if such a law were somehow passed in the US, so many crooks already have guns and wouldn't hand them in, that it would be a total gimme for crooks. From where the US is now, I don't think you COULD achieve a low-gun society. Not without more trouble than it would be worth, anyway.

The government cannot "Buy Back" anything that it never owned.

Just sayin'.

12 dead in 'Dark Knight' Colorado theater shooting

How about this proposal: anyone can have any kind and number of guns they want, but if your first trial determines that someone is negligent or criminal, they are immediately executed. No appeals. Since people kill people, and all.

I'll buy that.

First we need to determine how many of the theater goers were wearing hoodies in case it's hoodies that kill people.

Were the people he shot talking and texting during the movie? That would be reasonable justification.

Very funny

The dark knight rising I hear it is to die for

Well, this seems forgivable, presuming they went to press before the incident.

Attachment 39765



but this is just lazy and stooopid



Attachment 39766

:facepalm:

Why does the apology post have an earlier timestamp than the aurora one?

Good point. I notice one is via web and the other via iphone, and I guess that some multiple time-zone malarky is involved.

Doofus marketer made the first post, more senior exec had to step in and clean up the mess, maybe.

Anybody else have an opinion?

Sort of like pedophiles
... a trial is after the event and the person is apprehended and brought to trial and found guilty.

After all that, capital punishment is an (one-time) effective deterrent of recidivism,
but unfortunately it's not very effective as a preventative in the first place.

It won't happen in my lifetime, but eventually I believe this nation will demand
that the Supreme Court will revoke it's current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
(Now, everybody go buy ammunition and hide your guns) :rolleyes:
.

If they don't like genocides, the nation won't ask for gun control.

Joe Klein, Time magazine, wrote the current issue's cover story, Why Guns Won. Mr. Klein is the last person on Earth who ought to be writing about guns, for he is a giant statist and a gunbanner of many decades' standing. He's never been aware that a disarmed populace is necessary to a genocide, for otherwise that mass crime becomes impossible to commit.

Since I have some idea of the position he'll take, in defiance of the repeated Lott studies among others, I doubt I'll read the article.