“A LWers, if only you knew anything about history or warfare. There's a whole bunch of tough dudes in places like Iraq (think Fallujah, 2004), Afghanistan where we've been fighting for ten years, Chechnya against Russian Federation, and on. Against poorly armed, poorly trained, dedicated people.”
“Car insurance is a state level mandate, and not prohibited by federal constitution, so is not at odds. The analogy would be legally apt if the Federal government required car insurance. But it doesn't. Some states DON'T mandate insurance by the way.
The problem with the law is that traditionally the Commerce clause has not been read in a way that allows the Federal government to force a transaction at the individual level.
Take another example: Under the compelling nature of national security and the preface clause of the Second Amendment, could the Federal Government say force every household to purchase and keep a gun in the home for national defense? I think not. While in the public policy sense, they are obviously different, in the Commerce Clause sense, they would be analogous. In fact, the gun thing might be more legally compelling because the constitution specifically provides a national defense mechanism.”
“Well, by definition, even think people shouldn't have guns, the Supreme Court has not "run roughsod over our rights" be preventing government from infringing a right that the populace currently has. Quite the opposite. You may think it's bad policy, but let's not pretend that eliminating a right that you disagree with is anything other than eliminating a right.”
“"I have yet to figure out why when so many people are killed every year in this country we cannot get a consensus by rational people to do rational things. "
That's kind of a funny thing to say. Considering the lack of evidence that increased gun control impacts crime, and the fact that homicides and violent crimes keep going down, while gun ownership goes up, I might offer the same "ration people" a different point of view. While that is not causal (as opposed to correlated), it does put down the causal position that more guns equals more crime.”
ScreenName05 on Apr 19, 2010 at 14:38:34
“Yes, homicide is rampant in all those countries with rigid gun control - England (39 homicides in 2008/09), Japan, etc.
Following is a table of:
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0
See (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm) for direct comparison of gun ownership rates and homicides.
With 5 times the homicides and 10 times the guns per person of any other industrialized country I guess you are right there is no proof that gun control works.”
aproposofnothing on Apr 19, 2010 at 14:22:57
“there is evidence, you just deny it. Like everything else called "facts" and "data".”
“"We all dream of a world of sunshine happiness and peace. The problem is half of the people think it sounds like a wonderful place to live in. The other half think it sounds like a wonderful place to pillage."
Don't remember who said that, but it is apropos”
djcrsn on Mar 24, 2010 at 21:12:15
“ANd related is the concept that all it takes for evil to prosper is for good people to do NOTHING”
“I did take this from Haggard's article. Haggard is well known in the shooting business, and advocates armed response by individual police and civilians. Also forgot about the Apalachia Law School Shooting. So that's three that were civilians (Pearl, Church, Apalachia).
But you are clearly showing your ignorance. But the reason you're showing your ignorance is that you have this mythical idea of the trained police. The fact is, most police officers shoot less than 500 rounds per year and get about 30-40 hours of formal weapons training before they are qualified to carry and use a weapon (I'm an LE Armorer, so I know exactly how police guns get used). Most civilians shoot more than that, and a lot of them train more than that. I generally shoot about 12,000 rounds per year and do about 150 hours of formal handling, safety, and tactics training per year. Should I trust someone with far less training and experience than myself to protect me?”
Per your gun accidents comment, are you implying that it's a matter of calculus? If so, how many people use firearms to defend themselves on an annual basis with or without firing a shot? It's a lot more than homicides, suicides, and gun accidents combined.”
RevJimIII on Feb 27, 2010 at 16:00:18
“A conservative estimate is in the neighborhood of 1.5 million times per year a gun owner defends himself with a firearm. I believe this includes both active shoots and non shooting events.
Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University.”
“Per your request, I can name nine incidents where tactical pressure was applied by off duty police or civilians to end a mass/active shooter:
Mall shooting in Kansas City Mo.
Church shooting in Colorado Springs
Trolley Square Mall shooting in Salt Lake City
School shooting at high school in Pearl Miss.
Santee California High School shooting
Fairchild Air Force Base shooting
El Cajon California high school shooting
Dimebag Darrell concert shooting, Columbus Ohio
Topeka KS domestic violence shooter incident”
Zenfro on Feb 25, 2010 at 22:52:41
“You seem to have taken this list verbatim from an interesting article by police Sgt. Chuck Haggard in The Tactical Wire. I looked up each of the incidents on this thing called the Internet. In each one, the shooter was taken down by actual policemen, MPs, security guards, off-duty police, and in one case by a school vice-principal. (I couldn't be sure about the last one listed because it's so vague.)
Your own list--or rather Sgt. Haggard's--makes a strong case for allowing guns in the hands of trained professionals but not much of one for more general arming of the populace. Believe me, I remember how goofy most of those kids are at CSU. I would trust few of them with a gun. And somehow I don't feel safe having this sheriff around....
(Note that I have spoken to a CSU policeman who doubts the ban will have much effect.)”
“Have you ever trained with military or police? Do you know how they are trained in the judicious use of lethal force and the use of force continuum? Somehow I suspect not. I have done those things and more (also a certified law enforcement weapons armorer), and It isn't rocket surgery. If you have neutralized the threat, and are ordered to drop your weapon you should do so.”
“It seems that we're in Einstein's definition of insanity. We keep banning guns in schools and these shootings keep happening. So we ban guns in schools some more. Why don't we try something else now? Oh, and how many active shooter scenarios have been stopped by people with weapons?
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
gh0st on Feb 25, 2010 at 18:10:52
“Really? I mean, really?
Ok, go for it. Show us in which school did they "ban guns" and then the point in history following this where there was a mass shooting.
Insanity: just making stuff up to support what you believe and claiming it is reality.
(Oh, and how many active shooter scenarios have been stopped by people with weapons? - You tell us. That's another myth and when compared to the number of people who are hurt and killed from 'gun accidents'...)”