CNN correspondant saved by a legal gun.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/09/2015 01:16:23 PM · #26

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by Mike:
there is a big difference between a governmnet taking away a right and society asking them to take it away.

The prob with this statement.....Society as a whole is not asking to have guns taken away

Exactly -- which makes your paranoia about it confusing. Very few people (including myself) want "all the guns taken away" -- we want stricter and enforceable regulations to prevent the overwhelming number of gun deaths due to accident and suicide, and responsibility (liability) assigned for those cases where someone's gun is misused (see the report I posted earlier).

Two things that strike me as wrong about this logic.

First, the boiling frog is a very real thing, and I don't think it's totally ridiculous to assume that letting this happen would lead to a surprisingly rapid shift in policies, ending up with a result of extreme restrictions, making certain that the only owners of firearms are either wealthy or criminals.

Second, I would love to point out that many/most of the people who use guns in an illegal manner (esp. those resulting in homicide) are already banned from owning weapons for any one of a variety of reasons. What makes you think that extra restrictions or longer sentences would deter these people? I see no reason to believe this to be true.

--

As a bit of a parting shot here, please explain how this logic works for you.. Explain the cause and effect you expect. As I see it, you're foolishly equating more restrictions=significant reduction in criminals with firearms. If that is the case, I'd like to remind you that heroin and meth and cocaine have been banned in this country for decades, and yet I'm pretty sure I could get any one of those three delivered to my door within hours. Pot has been banned for decades as well, and I've never had a problem finding it.

Finally, to bring this full circle, let's consider pot for a second. Less than a decade ago some groups managed to get just the tiniest bit of legislation passed that would allow for a very small group of people to smoke pot legally as a treatment for a very limited list of medical conditions. Today we have several states that have fully legalized pot, and we're seeing a trend that leads me to think that the entire nation will not be far behind. (thank goodness).. Don't doubt for one second that a moderate small compromise is always the beginning of the end.

Message edited by author 2015-07-09 13:19:37.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/09/2015 01:23:28 PM · #27

Originally posted by Cory:

Second, I would love to point out that many/most of the people who use guns in an illegal manner (esp. those resulting in homicide) are already banned from owning weapons for any one of a variety of reasons. What makes you think that extra restrictions or longer sentences would deter these people? I see no reason to believe this to be true.

Read the (entire) story I posted earlier. If (for example) employee and owner of the store which sold the weapon and the granny who fronted the purchase were liable for criminal conviction for being an accessory to murder rather than a $120K cash settlement, I think there's a good chance that gun would not have been sold, and that kid (and maybe his dad) would still be alive.

The gun used in the recent San Francisco murder making all the headlines was stolen from a US Government (BLM) vehicle -- I bet no one there will bear any liability for the death.

Message edited by author 2015-07-09 13:25:48.

07/09/2015 01:51:14 PM · #28

Originally posted by Cory:

Perhaps we should consider splitting the union, one half with freedom, the other with their fantasy of government protection.

Not a bad idea. I'll take the side with the freedom to live without fear of being shot in a school, church or supermarket, and you can have the side where the government protects a fantasy of the second amendment that ignores the plainly stated function of an organized militia.

07/09/2015 02:04:27 PM · #29

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
Perhaps we should consider splitting the union, one half with freedom, the other with their fantasy of government protection.

Not a bad idea. I'll take the side with the freedom to live without fear of being shot in a school, church or supermarket, and you can have the side where the government protects a fantasy of the second amendment that ignores the plainly stated function of an organized militia.

Ok, tell ya what. I'll agree to whatever gun bans you want, and publicly support it, once you prove to me that bans (or restrictions) work in the US.

The only thing I can think to ask ask for, as proof, is a significant reduction in heroin use and deaths, gained solely through the enforcement of bans. Should be easy enough to prove, right?

Message edited by author 2015-07-09 14:12:43.

07/09/2015 02:10:47 PM · #30

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
Second, I would love to point out that many/most of the people who use guns in an illegal manner (esp. those resulting in homicide) are already banned from owning weapons for any one of a variety of reasons. What makes you think that extra restrictions or longer sentences would deter these people? I see no reason to believe this to be true.

Read the (entire) story I posted earlier. If (for example) employee and owner of the store which sold the weapon and the granny who fronted the purchase were liable for criminal conviction for being an accessory to murder rather than a $120K cash settlement, I think there's a good chance that gun would not have been sold, and that kid (and maybe his dad) would still be alive.

The gun used in the recent San Francisco murder making all the headlines was stolen from a US Government (BLM) vehicle -- I bet no one there will bear any liability for the death.

Oh, so you think that $120k wasn't a good deterrent? Like the folks who enabled this shit to happen actually thought "Hmm, if I do this, I might be caught and be liable for a huge cash settlement, ahh, screw it, $120,000 is peanuts, I totally want to sell this guy a gun".. NO, dang it YOU KNOW they didn't think that at all. More likely it was like "I don't want this sale to fall though, I need to pay rent this month, and the extra $50 profit would ensure that I don't have to eat Ramen for the next week" - People don't EVER think they're going to get caught, or they wouldn't commit any crimes, no matter how menial the punishment.

Ask yourself this: If you thought that speeding was going to get you fined, even just $100, would you ever speed? When is it 'worth' $100 to go a few miles per hour faster (and that's not to mention the increased risk of DEATH).. People just don't work like you seem to think they do, although I'll be the first to admit that I wish they did.

07/09/2015 02:27:26 PM · #31

Originally posted by Cory:

I would love to point out that many/most of the people who use guns in an illegal manner (esp. those resulting in homicide) are already banned from owning weapons for any one of a variety of reasons.

I'm sure you would love to point that out... if only it weren't complete hogwash. Deregulations and loopholes have ensured that most of the people who use guns in an illegal manner are able to get them by invoking an amendment which had NEVER been interpreted as an individual right before 2008. Most guns used in mass shootings (let alone domestic dusputes and suicides) are legally purchased. Remember, too, that hundreds of thousands of legally purchased guns are stolen every year.

Originally posted by Cory:

What makes you think that extra restrictions or longer sentences would deter these people?

History and the example of every other advanced nation on earth. This is the ONLY country in the world where mourning is acceptable, but discussing ways to prevent more deaths is not.

Originally posted by Cory:

you're foolishly equating more restrictions=significant reduction in criminals with firearms.

More guns and lax restrictions lead to more gun deaths. This is both obvious and proven.

Originally posted by Cory:

heroin and meth and cocaine have been banned in this country for decades, and yet I'm pretty sure I could get any one of those three delivered to my door within hours.

A boneheaded claim given how often gun advocates themselves blame gun violence on drugs. Funny how you never hear them demand that the government eliminate restrictions and allow everyone access to meth and cocaine. Are you seriously suggesting that drug laws are pointless because there's still drugs? Shall we also eliminate licenses, driver training and safety restrictions on cars because there are still traffic accidents? Yes, please do explain how this logic works for you.

07/09/2015 02:33:16 PM · #32

Originally posted by Cory:

The only thing I can think to ask ask for, as proof, is a significant reduction in heroin use and deaths, gained solely through the enforcement of bans. Should be easy enough to prove, right?

Yep.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/09/2015 03:07:09 PM · #33

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
The only thing I can think to ask ask for, as proof, is a significant reduction in heroin use and deaths, gained solely through the enforcement of bans. Should be easy enough to prove, right?

Yep.

So, what you've just proven is that law enforcement works. They didn't need to pass new laws, they simply committed to enforcing the existing laws, and it helped.

Still didn't stop it did it? And there's a further issue with the fact that stopping mass murder is actually harder than just reducing guns on the street...

I want the same things you do, I just think your proposed method is rather fanciful at best.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/09/2015 03:14:24 PM · #34

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
Second, I would love to point out that many/most of the people who use guns in an illegal manner (esp. those resulting in homicide) are already banned from owning weapons for any one of a variety of reasons. What makes you think that extra restrictions or longer sentences would deter these people? I see no reason to believe this to be true.

Read the (entire) story I posted earlier. If (for example) employee and owner of the store which sold the weapon and the granny who fronted the purchase were liable for criminal conviction for being an accessory to murder rather than a $120K cash settlement, I think there's a good chance that gun would not have been sold, and that kid (and maybe his dad) would still be alive.

Oh, so you think that $120k wasn't a good deterrent?

Obviously it wasn't -- just the cost of doing business. But their insurance company couldn't serve ten years in a Federal pen for being an accessory to murder -- I think that risk just might make a dealer think harder about making a sale to a (front for a) felon, don't you?

And I think it's idiotic to equate bans on substances used primarily to "elevate one's mood" to devices use to kill or practice killing. It is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever threaten to kill you with heroin in a robbery attempt ... more likely they'd be using a gun to rob you to buy it, when it could all be avoided if they could just go to the drug store to buy their drugs.

Banning recreational drugs is stupid (and a leading cause of violent deaths) when regulation (and taxation and education and treatment) prove so much more effective than interdiction and imprisonment. Check out the book The New Jim Crow to see how the whole "War On Drugs" has essentially become (and probably always was) a way to cripple minority communities through selective enforcement. In the book Unfair another author shows how the (scientific and ethical) flaws in the criminal justice system permit and accentuate the problem.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/09/2015 03:20:20 PM · #35

Originally posted by Cory:

Also, reading the news over the last few days, I'm guessing fireworks will be on the agenda soon as well.

Fortunately there is no national organization to defend the average American's right to fireworks. Regions are allowed to ban, limit , or allow fireworks as they like. Here in my area of bone dry Northern California fireworks are heavily controlled and as a result only municipal entities can get their hands on the really powerful fireworks. The only fireworks that are available to average folks are little smoke bombs and firecrackers ("Safe and Sane" fireworks), and of course there are illegal fireworks brought in from other areas where they are legal, which are blamed for the majority of wildfires and burnt down houses and hospital visits associated with big explosives in the hands of untrained people. Most people are content to watch the big municipal fireworks shows and get nervous when some idiot in their area starts shooting off illegal fireworks in the hills, because they are a danger to the rest of the community.

I am happy that there is no belief that fireworks are a constitutionally protected entity. We save lives and public money because of these laws.

Message edited by author 2015-07-09 15:22:38.

07/09/2015 03:24:50 PM · #36

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
Second, I would love to point out that many/most of the people who use guns in an illegal manner (esp. those resulting in homicide) are already banned from owning weapons for any one of a variety of reasons. What makes you think that extra restrictions or longer sentences would deter these people? I see no reason to believe this to be true.

Read the (entire) story I posted earlier. If (for example) employee and owner of the store which sold the weapon and the granny who fronted the purchase were liable for criminal conviction for being an accessory to murder rather than a $120K cash settlement, I think there's a good chance that gun would not have been sold, and that kid (and maybe his dad) would still be alive.

Oh, so you think that $120k wasn't a good deterrent?

Obviously it wasn't -- just the cost of doing business. But their insurance company couldn't serve ten years in a Federal pen for being an accessory to murder -- I think that risk just might make a dealer think harder about making a sale to a (front for a) felon, don't you?

And I think it's idiotic to equate bans on substances used primarily to "elevate one's mood" to devices use to kill or practice killing. It is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever threaten to kill you with heroin in a robbery attempt ... more likely they'd be using a gun to rob you to buy it, when it could all be avoided if they could just go to the drug store to buy their drugs.

Banning recreational drugs is stupid (and a leading cause of violent deaths) when regulation (and taxation and education and treatment) prove so much more effective than interdiction and imprisonment. Check out the book The New Jim Crow to see how the whole "War On Drugs" has essentially become (and probably always was) a way to cripple minority communities through selective enforcement. In the book Unfair another author shows how the (scientific and ethical) flaws in the criminal justice system permit and accentuate the problem.

You really think their insurance company paid for that?

I honestly don't think 10 years, or 20, or death would change it. I've never thought harsher sentences to be a good deterrent, and our current prison population would seem to support my conclusion rather firmly.

The point isn't the equation of drugs being used as weapons, surely you see that. The equivalence is in the supply end of things, the fact that they are both commodities which are sold and traded on the gray and black markets.

Also, I find it interesting/strange that those same minority communities that have been crippled with unfair enforcement tactics are also the place where the lion's share of gun crimes are committed. Not that I understand it, but it's certainly a point to consider in this discussion (of course, by doing so we run the very real risk of appearing racist).

07/09/2015 03:28:32 PM · #37

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Interesting that the original link to the story about legal guns "saving lives involved 3 people with guns, a guard, a thief, and a guy in the shower one was killed, one was shot five times and one was not shot. And this is intended to make me understand we need more guns? The reporter is certain that the armed thief was intent on killing her or doing more than simply robbing her (either way that is a bad situation ) but once there were 2 guns in that motel room, the outcome was much more dangerous. I frankly doubt that there were valuables in that room to make it worth being shot 5 times over, even if you did get to kill the other guy.

Originally posted by Cory:
Also, reading the news over the last few days, I'm guessing fireworks will be on the agenda soon as well.

Fortunately there is no national organization to defend the average American's right to fireworks. Regions are allowed to ban, limit , or allow fireworks as they like. Here in my area of bone dry Northern California fireworks are heavily controlled and as a result only municipal entities can get their hands on the really powerful fireworks. The only fireworks that are available to average folks are little smoke bombs and firecrackers ("Safe and Sane" fireworks), and of course there are illegal fireworks brought in from other areas where they are legal, which are blamed for the majority of wildfires and burnt down houses and hospital visits associated with big explosives in the hands of untrained people. Most people are content to watch the big municipal fireworks shows and get nervous when some idiot in their area starts shooting off illegal fireworks in the hills, because they are a danger to the rest of the community.

I am happy that there is no belief that fireworks are a constitutionally protected entity. We save lives and public money because of these laws.

Nicely executed argument. "Our fireworks aren't regulated like guns, so we can put bans in place as we choose to.. [...] But people still bring in illegal fireworks and cause trouble, essentially meaning that the bans have only stopped the people who didn't really care about fireworks, and the group of responsible citizens who are careful and follow laws... (ie, the people who wouldn't cause problems with the fireworks).."

Think about that for just a moment, surely you'll see the huge irony in this argument.

07/09/2015 03:32:42 PM · #38

Here's an update on the original incident, FYI..

07/09/2015 03:51:34 PM · #39

Originally posted by Cory:

That was the proof you requested after you just blathered about laws against drugs NOT working.

Message edited by author 2015-07-09 15:52:05.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/09/2015 04:05:20 PM · #40

Originally posted by Cory:

people still bring in illegal fireworks and cause trouble, essentially meaning that the bans have only stopped the people who didn't really care about fireworks...

Think about that for just a moment, surely you'll see the huge irony in this argument.

Ooh, ooh... I do! The irony is that you just conceded regulations would stop most uses of something that causes destruction. Your only counter argument was that it wouldn't stop ALL uses� like claiming "vaccinations can't work" because some people will refuse to vaccinate.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/09/2015 04:07:47 PM · #41

Originally posted by Cory:

Oh I have, the argument was not made randomly. I see a vastly reduced number of fires and injuries because of limited access to fireworks, others see an affront to individual liberties. If fireworks are made illegal then only criminals will have fire works. Got it. After all fireworks only caused 17,800 reported fires, including 1,200 total structure fires, 400 vehicle fires, and 16,300 outside and other fires. These fires resulted in an estimated 40 civilian injuries and $32 million in direct property damage in 2011. If we use insurance company estimates of a normal bill on a fire department response to a structure fire of $28,000 as a base those 17,300 responses only cost the tax payers about half a billion dollars. In my area we only had 5 wildfires this Fourth, caused by people shooting off illegal fireworks, only a few hundred acres burnt. Fireworks don't start fires, its the people who use them. Ya, I might see some irony there.

Message edited by author 2015-07-09 16:15:08.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

07/09/2015 04:29:44 PM · #42

Originally posted by Cory:

Here's an update on the original incident, FYI..

Thanks for the update. I had missed this. Looks like he will be doing some serious time. Serves him right

07/09/2015 05:19:18 PM · #43

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Cory:
The only thing I can think to ask ask for, as proof, is a significant reduction in heroin use and deaths, gained solely through the enforcement of bans.

...So, what you've just proven is that law enforcement works.

That was the proof you requested after you just blathered about laws against drugs NOT working.

Your goal wasn't just a slight reduction in deaths. I don't see that as a place that is now free of drugs and drug related deaths. Sorry, but a small reduction after a large enforcement effort doesn't really satisfy the requirement here.

Although, it does convince me that larger enforcement budgets can provide a temporary respite from these types of problems.

07/09/2015 05:22:08 PM · #44

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Cory:
Nicely executed argument. "Our fireworks aren't regulated like guns, so we can put bans in place as we choose to.. [...] But people still bring in illegal fireworks and cause trouble, essentially meaning that the bans have only stopped the people who didn't really care about fireworks, and the group of responsible citizens who are careful and follow laws... (ie, the people who wouldn't cause problems with the fireworks).."

Think about that for just a moment, surely you'll see the huge irony in this argument.

Oh I have, the argument was not made randomly. I see a vastly reduced number of fires and injuries because of limited access to fireworks, others see an affront to individual liberties. If fireworks are made illegal then only criminals will have fire works. Got it. After all fireworks only caused 17,800 reported fires, including 1,200 total structure fires, 400 vehicle fires, and 16,300 outside and other fires. These fires resulted in an estimated 40 civilian injuries and $32 million in direct property damage in 2011. If we use insurance company estimates of a normal bill on a fire department response to a structure fire of $28,000 as a base those 17,300 responses only cost the tax payers about half a billion dollars. In my area we only had 5 wildfires this Fourth, caused by people shooting off illegal fireworks, only a few hundred acres burnt. Fireworks don't start fires, its the people who use them. Ya, I might see some irony there.

I don't buy that you went from 17,800 fires down to five. If you can show me this, in official data of some sort, I'll be much more convinced that your argument is, in fact, excellent.

Luciemac

Nikon D5600

07/09/2015 05:40:02 PM · #45

Originally posted by blindjustice:

For every "a legal gun saved someone" article you can find there are two articles about a 3 year old shooting his mother or a brother killing another brother or a murder suicide, etc.

what is the point of your posts? you are somehow going to enlighten people that carrying a gun is the only solution? Look at the rest of the world.

I think you would be liberated if you could get rid of your guns, and stop obsessing about them. Take up Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, tennis, anything else. If you need it for protection, move somewhere where you don't. And about protecting yourself from a tyrannical government- #1 you are not losing any rights #2 it wouldn't stop them anyway.

The truth is, the overwhelming statistic is that bad things will happen to you with your own gun rather than you "use it in a justified manner." If you want to own it to target shoot, keep it at the range.

I'm sure this post was as useless as this thread at changing minds, so as I turn up Pearl Jam's "Glorified"(which you should study the lyrics to) I say, be well Cowboy.

Thank you, blindjustice (sorry I didn't take the time to look up your name). You said it the way I wish I had. The American obsession with guns makes no sense and I'm embarrassed to imagine what it says about those obsessed. I'm also afraid that no tragedy will be too great for them to unclench their hands from their guns. Guns are more important to them than the welfare of their own families in way too many cases.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

07/09/2015 05:56:03 PM · #46

Just for perspective here, I have a family member who is under a restraining order from both myself and my father. The police confiscated a firearm from her after she was arrested for waving it at other motorists. They subsequently returned the weapon (by order of the captain of the Sheriff's department no less), and refuse to do anything about her being armed, despite the fact they literally KNOW she has it due to the fact they returned it, and they KNOW she is crazy enough to use it (due to the aforementioned arrest) AND they KNOW she would like to use it on me. Despite that, they refuse to do anything at all about it. They simply don't give a rat's ass.

Until we (as a society) address issues like these, I will never, NEVER, support further laws that restrict gun ownership... I mean COME ON, how low hanging of a fruit do you want? This woman is clearly guilty of a felony, and the police refuse to act, she is a clear and present danger with what she feels is excellent motivation to act. Want to impress me? PM me for the info and I'll give you everything you need to frustrate yourself trying to fix this.

Prove to me that you can actually fix a VERY clear problem that is already covered by law - I challenge you to disarm this woman..

ETA: She is also a known meth addict, has previously shot my father, and is currently facing charges for stalking and harassment along with criminal damage to property. Sadly, it would seem that the police value her as an informant so much that she is virtually immune to any laws that apply to us normal citizens.

Message edited by author 2015-07-10 10:56:19.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/09/2015 06:39:27 PM · #47

so you don't want to own a gun now but wish to be able to own one later in life if needed?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/09/2015 07:08:32 PM · #48

Originally posted by Cory:

Your goal wasn't just a slight reduction in deaths. I don't see that as a place that is now free of drugs and drug related deaths.

You vowed to concede a gun ban I have never called for if I could prove "a significant reduction in heroin use and deaths, gained solely through the enforcement of bans." Your words. I gave you a 700%+ reduction in heroin use and deaths gained solely through the enforcement of bans in two different places. Rather than keep your word, you call that massive reduction "slight," added a qualifier about larger budgets despite no indication of any budget change, and moved the goalposts to the total elimination of drugs and drug related deaths. Your argument with Brennan has taken a similarly disingenuous course� sacrificing your crebility for the sake of unsupported passion.

Message edited by author 2015-07-09 19:08:55.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/09/2015 08:19:35 PM · #49

Originally posted by Cory:

I don't buy that you went from 17,800 fires down to five. If you can show me this, in official data of some sort, I'll be much more convinced that your argument is, in fact, excellent.

Well if you want to confabulate two different numbers from different statements and not click on the hot link provided that goes to numbers from the National Fire Prevention Association for the year 2011, you will figure out a way not to be convinced. To the most cursory of readings the 17,800 fires caused by fireworks is a national number from 4 years ago and the 5 was a loose recollection of what I saw on the news a few nights ago. Did you really think that my local fire department got called out to 17,800 fire in a day?

As far as your crazy armed family member, you have my sympathy. I doubt that the issue is one of the police "not giving a rat's ass" as you describe it. Law enforcement's ability to confiscate weapons has been massively limited by court action and laws passed by legislators who share the viewpoint that no gun law ought to be allowed to stand, or if on the books, be allowed to be enforced.