Want a gun? Take a bullet:

[sarisataka]

Want a gun? Take a bullet: Take this, gutless NRA cowards — you can have a gun, once you understand the pain of being shot

As a teen I watched Chris Rock brilliantly address America’s gun problem during his Bigger and Blacker stand up. “We don’t need gun control,” Rock pleaded to a packed house, “We need bullet control––if bullets were $5000, people would think before they shot some one! You gotta really piss someone off for them to dump $50,000 worth of bullets in to you!” And just like the crowd, my brother, some friends and I erupted in laughter.

Rock was definitely on point, $5000 bullets would be great but I’d take it a step further––I believe that being shot should be requirement for gun ownership in America. It’s very simple. You need to have gun, like taking selfies with pistols, can’t live with out it? Then take a bullet and you will be granted the right to purchase the firearm of your choice.

If we could successfully implement this rule, I guarantee the mass shootings will stop. Watching cable news now in days makes me physically ill. Week in and week out we are forced to learn about another coward, who can’t stand to deal with the same rejection that most of us face–– so they strap themselves with guns and then cock and spray at innocent people. Heartbroken survivors and family member images go viral, as our elected officials remain clueless.

The Democrats faced off for the first time this week. Clinton lead with a stat that was just as staggering as it was sad, “90 people a day die due to gun violence!” followed by the rhetoric that has been tossed around for years––more rigorous gun laws coupled with a stricter screening process and plans that are never clear or properly fleshed out. She and Bernie traded blows on who’s tougher but still––no solutions on aggressively addressing this matter.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/16/want_a_gun_take_a_bullet_new_rule_before_you_pack_heat_you_will_know_what_it_feels_like_to_be_shot/
Reasonable discussion...

[librarylu]

1. I've been shot

and I DON'T want a damned gun.

[GGJohn]

6. I was shot down twice in Vietnam,

and I own numerous firearms.
It's your right not to own firearms, it's my right to own them.

[librarylu]

14. I was shot by a Nam vet

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about your right to own them.

[melm00se]

15. I hope that no one

takes that attitude towards any of the rights you hold dear.

[librarylu]

17. Such as freedom of speech?

I like that one.

I hope the DU gun owners/veterans don't have full blown, late onset PTSD and/or severe problems with alcohol.

Please don't invite me over for dinner or anything.

[melm00se]

18. rights are rights

and should be held/protected equally.

No one right should be more important than another. The second that happens all rights get eroded.

I am sorry that you don't/refuse to see it but I am not overly surprised as it is quite common for people to staunchly defend the rights that they believe in and dismiss/minimize those that they don't support.

[MillennialDem]

31. No, a right is a legal category that can be added, removed, or modified

Going beyond the legal process to remove a right is wrong (heh) but using the legal process is fine. I don't believe people should have the right to have guns, so I want remove that right through the legal process. I recognize it currently is a right to have a gun though.

[sarisataka]

32. Do you believe we have any rights

Beyond what is protected by law?

Could we repeal the 5th and 6th then compel self-testimony and sentence any punishment the court wishes?

Repeal the 1st, then declare fundamental Christianity the offical religion? Any who speak against such get pilloried?

[MillennialDem]

34. Again, not understanding me. is there a process to remove the first

Amendment? Yes, same as the second.should we remove the first? No, IMO. Should we remove the second? Yes IMO.

there is what i think should be a right and what is a right. They are not the same thing.

[sarisataka]

38. My question is

What is a right?

Whether or not we agree with a right, does it cease to exist if it is not codified?

Using the 5th as an example- if repealed would the government be justified in forcing you to testify even if it is incriminating? I would say no because we have a natural right to remain silent in the face of accusations. To compel testimony would be an abrogation of that right regardless of 5th Amendment guarantee.

If I understand you, it would be acceptable to compel testimony without explicit protection.

[MillennialDem]

45. No, because I'm not in favor of repealing the 5th amendment. Moreover -I think the 2nd amendment is

only codified, I don't think ownership of a gun is a natural right.

I think the 5th is both codified and a natural right.

[melm00se]

33. sarisataka

asks an excellent question, I am curious to read your response.

I'll expand on his question with these:

based upon your statement, might it be interpreted that you do not believe in human rights?

additionally, where do rights, like human rights, come from? are they purely inventions of Mankind subject to the whims of Mankind?

[MillennialDem]

36. of course people should have rights. its just a matter of what should and

Shouldn't be a right. Can I ask you where you think the right to own a gun comes from?

[gejohnston]

39. the same place other rights do

nature. The BoR is a set of negative rights, as Obama once correctly pointed out and some right wingers went bat shit over. That means the BoR does not grant them, it simply limits government on infringing on rights. That is the purpose of the 9A, the "just because we didn't think of it, doesn't mean it isn't protected". I love annoying "libertarians" by using that amendment that clean air and water, and healthcare as a natural right protected by that amendment.

The concept of natural rights pushed by John Locke, which the founders were big fans of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm

[MillennialDem]

44. I'm aware the BoR is a set of negative rights. I'm just wondering why you think the right to

have a gun should be included as hands off, put in the BoR as the government can't touch it.

What actual basis do you have that guns are a natural right?

[gejohnston]

48. the right of self defense

and the best means to do so for starters. Remember, places that don't allow guns for other than sporting use don't allow other means of self defense, including less than lethal. The choice between armed vs armed and unarmed vs unarmed is a false dichotomy. Just because it is harder to get a gun, or anything else, legally doesn't mean it is just as difficult to get it illegally. According to the media I have read, it is very easy to get an illegal gun in Australia. The guys that attacked Charlie Hebdo and the deli with automatic weapons bought the select fire AKs, sub machine guns, and a rocket launcher at a Brussels train station.

[MillennialDem]

49. It's not a false dichotomy. It's about likely vs unlikely. In a society with no (or few) legal guns

I'm far less likely to be shot by an attacker. I'm also far less likely to be shot accidentally, or even threatened by people with guns.

[gejohnston]

56. who ever fed you that line of shit

was blowing some really good smoke up your ass. That is not how the real world works.

see Mexico, Venezuela. There are no legal guns in Venezuela or Jamaica. Or Aruba for that matter. You have a better chance of getting shot in any of those places than you do in Detroit or Newark. You also have the higher chance of getting stabbed or bombed in Mexico and Russia. Doesn't matter where you are in the world, if you can get a bag of pot or some cocaine, you can get a gun. Not that you actually need a gun to kill someone. Ask yourself this, in a society where there is no legal heroin, why do heroin deaths out number gun murders? How do nursery school teachers get cut down with a machine gun in London while leaving a birthday party?

The Australian Federal Police doesn't have the slightest clue how many illegal guns there in Australia. Some are stolen from cops, some smuggled, same made in basements. In fact, basement made SMGs are not that unusual.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/drive-by-shooting-up-by-41-per-cent/story-e6frg6nf-1226329
Also, you are more likely to experience a home invasion or car jacking in Australia than here. There is no guarantee they will let you live either.

Compare Cuidad Juarez and El Paso. Which has the most guns and liberal gun laws? El Paso. Which are you most likely to get murdered in? Juarez. Guns are used in about 20 percent of the murders, meaning the cartels are a tip of the iceberg. Who says you need a gun to kill someone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders
On the other hand,
http://www.news9.com/story/19858704/12-year-old-girl-shoots-intruder-during-home-invasion

Some food for thought
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/australian-defence-force-weapons-supplier-in-link-to-bikies/story-fni0fee2-1226798521595
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/04/australian-motorcycle-gang-diy-firearms-surface/

I respect your choice either way, I only ask that you do the same for me.

[MillennialDem]

58. Apples to oranges comparisons and anecdotes. Face it, compared to most of the developed

world, you are far and away more likely to get shot and/or murdered (gun or not) in the US than you are in Switzerland, Germany, Italy, or Belgium. Hell, you're more likely to get murdered in America than you are in most of the Balkans (only Albania has a higher murder rate).

Also you apparently don't understand the difference between anecdotes and statistics either. Yes, I get it, you can get shot in a place where guns are highly illegal. But that is meaningless in a statistical context.

[gejohnston]

62. If you go by GINI index, it is.

We are not anything like Germany, Italy, or Belgium. Mexico and Brazil are developed countries. We aren't anything like them either. Each country has its own problems. In the US, if you aren't part of a gang and have a criminal record, your chances of being murdered are a lot less than someone who is. In Australia, most murders are home invasions, sometimes gang related.
The only reason gun control activists use those examples are to cherry pick.
Yes I do understand the difference between anecdotes and statistics, you don't seem to understand a propaganda technique called card stacking. Your statistics are simply not valid or relevant.
I didn't say shot, I believe I said a better chance of getting murdered. You might have a better chance of getting shot in the US than Mexico, but you have a better chance of getting murdered there. Big difference.

[MillennialDem]

64. Gini index isn't a valid comparison imo, I'd say median income and median net worth are better

indicators to use. Of counties that we are comparable to there, we blow them out of the water at a rate of getting shot.

I'm quite aware what card stacking is - but where is your source on this?

And anyway I'm actually more afraid of getting shot - and wounded than getting killed. FWIW.

[gejohnston]

69. in your opinion

so you compare us to less poverty, less organized crime, less wealth inequality and have nothing in common with. Right.
Most people are afraid of getting stabbed than shot.

[melm00se]

40. The right to keep and bear arms

stems from the fundamental right to self defense as an extension of the right to life.

Notice that the 2nd Amendment (and for that matter the 1st Amendment) does not enumerate a specific technology. This indicates, to me at least, that our Founding Fathers understood that technology would not stand still but rather that it would evolve and selection of the term "arms" allowed for sufficient flexibility to address the change in personal weapons technology that has occurred since the late 18th century.

Our FF were very wise when they drafted the Constitution in that it built in flexibility to accommodate changes in society as well as the ability to change (albeit with extreme difficulty) the fundamental framework in case there was a valid reason (but not changes because a simple majority "feels" that a change should be made - - look at the mess that the California Constitution has become because of their method of revising their state Constitution).

[MillennialDem]

46. I don't think guns are about self defense though - I think they're more about self

offense.

I'd much rather take my chances unarmed vs unarmed than armed vs armed.

[branford]

53. No one is forcing you to own a gun, the decision on whether to possess or carry firearms

is your choice, as is whether to employ one in self defense (or hunting, sport, etc.)

No matter your wishes, firearms cannot be uninvented, and there are about 350 million legal guns already in circulation in the USA (and over 1 out of ever 3 adults owns at least one gun), with untold numbers of illegal weapons and owners. The toothpaste is already out of the tube. Additionally, unlike newer disposal electronics and other consumer goods, firearms are a simple and extremely durable mechanical technology that can last many generations, and it's not uncommon to pass down certain firearms down from parent to child.

I would also note that self-defense is not a simple dichotomy between "unarmed vs unarmed" or "armed vs armed." For instance, places like the Britain are beset by knife crime. Death is death, regardless of whether you die of firearms or knife wounds. Whether you like it or not, a firearm is probably the best defense for most people against a knife (or tire iron, bat, brick, etc.) Melee combat is particularly deadly to all involved, and requires a much higher level of health and skill than needed to employ a firearms. More importantly, not everyone is young, healthy, strong, dexterous, and possessing a black belt in martial arts. The only viable self-defense equalizer for the small, weak, disabled, old, etc., no less when facing multiple assailants, is a gun. It may sound trite, but the old axiom, “Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal,” is quite relevant.

Simply, "unarmed vs unarmed" is a death sentence for a great many people, and since firearms already exist in such enormous numbers in America, I suggest you first propose a realistic plan to confiscate all the firearms from criminals before you suggest people give-up their right to armed self-defense.

You can "take your chances" at your discretion. That is your right, and is to be respected. Deciding what's best for the other millions of law-abiding citizens, however, is decidedly illiberal, arrogant, unrealistic, and currently illegal.

[MillennialDem]

54. Stop with the "don't even bother trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment" nonsense. Gay marriage was

unthinkable 20 years ago and it's unthinkable to get rid of it now. Plus, the younger people are less likely to agree that there is some inherent, natural right to own a gun.

We'll get it done. It will take a long time, but if we have the will, it will happen.

As for self defense, guns make a person like me, like I said, LESS SAFE. I'm fit, big, and strong. I'm non-violent, but it gives people more of an excuse to shoot me rather than someone else who does not match that description. Thankfully, I'm a woman because if I was a man I'd be even less safe in this regard.

And I'm deciding what's best for other millions of law-abiding citizens based on simple statistics. No matter who you are, you are less safe with a gun. That's just mathematical reality. You can bring up examples where this isn't true (such as grandma facing two attackers) but for every grandma facing two attackers, there is a young father who committed suicide, a kid who shot his younger sibling, a woman killed by her ex boyfriend, and a neighbor shot by accident.

[gejohnston]

57. sorry, you don't have the right to

make decisions for other people because of "simple statistics" which aren't true and you aren't that well informed on the issue.
If you are not violent, then you are safe. If you commit violence, well tough shit. Worth reading
http://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/
There is no "mathematical reality" other than fake studies funded by a certain billionaire. The mathematical reality is in the several studies done by criminologists that says the opposite. 500K times a year, and people rarely get shot.
The stats are old, but still valid.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

[MillennialDem]

60. Those are not scientific studies because they are not falsifiable. Produce a falsifiable study if

you want to convince me. Until then, the paper those studies are printed on are more valuable as toilet paper.

And yes here is the mathematical REALITY. It's not a fake study.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls

about 250 assailants killed by firearm per year. That's nothing. There are more deaths in ALL of the following categories, SEPARATELY:

Suicides
Homicides
Accidents

and together they blow that out of the water.

Some assailants are surely wounded though, rather than killed? Yep, certainly. But so are people who survive shootings in suicide attempts, attempted murder/assaults, and accidents. Those also outnumber wounded assailants.

But some assailants are scared off by guns, right? That's what your link says. Yeah. Maybe. Produce a truly falsifiable study, not an estimate to back it up and you'll have me change my position.

And yes I have the right to make decisions for others based on statistical reality. That's why I will not stop until the 2nd is thrown in the garbage.

And me being non-violent makes me safe? What a joke. I think a lot of gun owners like the idea that they can actually start a fight (by initiating violence, and then shoot if they lose or the other person stands up for him or herself. I had a tiny woman once shove me in the back then give me the stink eye when I said "what the fuck?" wouldn't be surprised if she wanted me to push her back then she shoots me).

[gejohnston]

66. actually, they are scientific

they have been published in peer review criminology journals, the best known won the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology.
http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X

What a joke. I think a lot of gun owners like the idea that they can actually start a fight (by initiating violence, and then shoot if they lose or the other person stands up for him or herself. I had a tiny woman once shove me in the back then give me the stink eye when I said "what the fuck?" wouldn't be surprised if she wanted me to push her back then she shoots me).

Yeah, cool story.

[MillennialDem]

67. Peer reviewed does not mean the same thing as scientific (most importantly, falsifiable)

[branford]

72. Feel free to try to repeal the Second Amendment.

Changing the Constitution is hard by design, and requires far more than a mere majority. Also, unlike gay marriage and abortion, repealing the Amendment would actually be an attempt to remove or restrict a right, rather than expand rights. The only other remotely comparable situation was prohibition, and that was a complete and total failure.

More importantly, repeal of the Second Amendment would only allow certain gun restrictions, not mandate anything, nor reduce firearm violence. The failure of various recent gun control initiatives currently has absolutely nothing to do with Second Amendment problems. Many of the more moderate proposals would quite likely pass constitutional muster. However, they simply cannot garner sufficient electoral and popular support to pass Congress or most of the states. The People are your problem, not the Consitution.

Similarly, despite your claims, support for gun rights and against restrictions is increasing, all while crime rates are demonstrably dropping and gun laws liberalizing in much of the country. You simply fail to realize how firearms, for good or ill, are part of the historic and cultural fabric of our country.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-have-no-impact-on-support-for-gun-rights-in-the-us

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/

Your contention that,

As for self defense, guns make a person like me, like I said, LESS SAFE. I'm fit, big, and strong. I'm non-violent, but it gives people more of an excuse to shoot me rather than someone else who does not match that description.

is simply ludicrous. The demographics of people statistically likely to be killed or injured by firearms are young, mostly urban, and poor men for a variety of unpleasant social reasons, and firearms are merely a tool used in commission of all forms of violence. This likely explains why are suicide rates are comparable to most other developed countries, and dramatically lower than gun control havens like Japan and South Korea. We have a cultural violence problem, not a gun problem.

Far more importantly, your cavalier disregard for anyone unlike yourself, including many millions of people, including other women, vulnerable minorities, the elderly and disabled, etc., is not only shocking and decidedly illiberal, but is duly noted and really helps explain the innumerable gun control legislative and policy failures.

Lastly, we've already had the discussion over the issues concerning the various firearm studies and research (recall that I used to work for the National Institute of Justice). Feel free to cherry pick you data and find reasons to ignore everything else that doesn't conform to your views. Don't be surprised when other people acknowledge this other scholarship, and act accordingly, usually by supporting gun rights.

For you amusement, the following is a video on how you'll need to go about removing the right to own guns and removing them.

[MillennialDem]

75. I'm quite aware it's a heavy lift to change the constitution. I'm also a fan of moderate

proposals though too. Multi pronged attack.

As for my cavalier attitude, well aww schucks, I guess to be a good liberal I must put be willing to put myself at increased risk (because that's what guns do for people like me, make me more likely to die or be wounded). What about your callous disregard for my life and safety? Because you certainly seem to have it.

I'm aware of the low probability of getting shot because of murder/assault/attempted murder/accident. I'm also aware though that it's even less likely a private citizen will lawfully shoot and kill or wound a criminal though. So like I said, it's just all about stats.

Firearms studies and research? Other than killings/woundings - not falsifiable. PASS. Make them falsifiable and have them confirm the data you claim and you'll have me on board and I'll buy a gun myself. Until then? PASS.

[branford]

78. No, a good liberal or progressive cares deeply about everyone,

Last edited Tue Oct 20, 2015, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)

and is particularly sensitive to the minority groups and the weak and powerless, the demographics who suffer the worst from violent crime. Even you cannot dispute that data.

I have been repeatedly (and often correctly) informed that the "I'm good, strong, and powerful, so screw you" crowd were registered Republicans. Maybe I need to reevaluate this belief, at least as it pertains to people who believe that they don't need a firearm for self defense (or hunting or sport), so the hell to people who with different needs and cultures.

[gejohnston]

59. you are free to do what you want

but don't force it on others.

[MillennialDem]

61. Don't force your increased risk of me being killed or wounded on me.

[gejohnston]

63. there is no increased risk

the statistic you are getting that from is from a study that failed peer review, could not be replicated, wasn't done following the scientific method, but was done by a gun control activist MD.
IOW, it is a crock. Unless you go into the drug business, do stupid things, go to stupid places, and hang out with stupid people your chances are very small outside of black swan events. That can happen to anyone anywhere. Evil doesn't care if you have a gun or not.

[MillennialDem]

65. LOL - interesting, given that I have no fucking clue what study you think I'm getting my

information from. I'm not getting my information from any study though, merely my own.

250 justifiable homicides per year. (FBI database)

30,000 ish gun deaths from accidents, suicide, or murder per year.

[gejohnston]

68. then you are not even remotely informed on a

complex issue. That doesn't count the wounding, the "oh shit change my mind". Accidents are less than 500. Suicides, if you think you might be I don't recommend you buy a gun, or a rope for that matter.
As for murder, IIRC, the number for gun murder is 8100 last year out of how many people in the US? Being female, your chances are very small. Most murder victims are male. Are you white? Even smaller yet. Asian? Even smaller.
http://www.rateyourrisk.org/#murder_test

[MillennialDem]

70. Wounding is even worse for your position, because just as people are

justifiably shot and killed at a much lower rate than those killed on purpose through suicide or murder and those killed in accidents..... more innocent people are wounded with guns in suicide, murder, and accidents than are wounded while committing a criminal offense by a lawful gun owner.

The only thing you have - statistically that has a chance of tipping the balance is the defensive gun use stat, but there has never been a falsifiable study on that done. Not once. So until then, I disregard that information (as I do with ALL unfalsifiable data). Plus, you'd need to also check the study and do a separate, concurrent one that tests how often defensive fist and non-gun weapons stop crimes. Perhaps mere assertiveness does it most of the time, regardless of the weapon.

[gejohnston]

71. not relevant

because wounding and bad guy changing their mind without shots fired out number criminal use of guns. How would you know that it is unfalsifiable if you never read the studies? If you are saying that, then you are also saying all social science is bullshit. That definitely says gender studies is pure bullshit. Quite frankly, I don't think you would read such a study because you haven't read the links I provided, unless you are Evelyn Wood's best student.

If you removed all guns, then those gun suicides become rope suicides. Me owning a gun does not affect your likelihood of offing yourself. Frankly, most murder victims in the US are not innocent. Most murders in the us are criminals killing each other.

Before you can do that, there criminal attack. Since using fists or assertiveness means that you would have to be equal or greater in physical size and strength or simply not be outnumbered.

[MillennialDem]

73. Le sigh

Yes, I do think social science is largely bullshit especially when it tries to use numbers to claim something.

That said with respect to gun studies in particular - here's why it isn't falsifiable and thus bull plop . Suppose I'm charged with investigating a small number of people who claimed to have had a defensive gun use in the last year. Further suppose that the people I'm charged with interviewing are named Tom, Dick, and Harry.

Tom did have a legitimate defensive gun use last year. He was minding his own business on a walk and was assaulted by 3 drunk morons and scared them off by pulling his gun.

Dick didn't have a defensive gun use. He lied because he thinks people are coming to take his guns.

Harry did pull his gun on someone, but it was another motorist, after he cut them off and they flipped him off and honked at him, but otherwise indicated no violent intent.

So I interview them. Tom has a good truthful story.

Dick claims someone tried to carjack him up at a gas station and he scared them off.

Harry claims a crazy motorist almost ran him off the road several times until he pulled his gun.

There is absolutely no way I could prove Dick or Harry are lying and/or mistaken about having a defensive gun use unless a GoPro had been on their heads at all times and I could see the incident in question.

[gejohnston]

74. and you are for taking away peoples rights based on that?

I guess it is OK as long as it is any rights YOU care about, isn't it?

[MillennialDem]

76. Like I said, I don't think ownership of a gun is a natural right.

[gejohnston]

82. and I do, I am also philosophically against

State monopoly on violence.

[librarylu]

100. Guns aren't natural.

I'm all for going back to sticks and stones. Well, maybe just sticks.

[branford]

103. Well, then it's a good thing we don't only have a right to keep and bear "guns."

We have a right to keep and bear "arms." Firearms just happen to be the most viable and effective self-defense equalizer available under current technology and the appropriate type of arms for militia service.

Nevertheless, if you wish to carry around a large stick for personal protection, I believe it is legal in most jurisdictions, and to the extent restricted, might be subject to constitutional challenge.

[branford]

77. You simply are choosing to conveniently ignore every incident of a defensive firearm use

Last edited Tue Oct 20, 2015, 04:20 PM - Edit history (1)

that didn't result in a death or even an injury. In fact, non-lethal defensive gun use is the preferable circumstance.

This is exactly what I mean by cherry-picking and ignoring "inconvenient" data.

Simply because you purportedly don't like the methodology of the studies that attempted to ascertain the number of defensive firearm uses, scholarship that indicated ranges from hundreds of thousands to millions, doesn't mean the number is zero (and similarly, firearm injuries that don't result in fatalities should be included in any comparative data set).

[melm00se]

81. Armed vs Armed // unarmed vs unarmed

Not everyone has the physicality necessary prevail in an unarmed situation.

Would you want your 80 year old relative mixing it up with a 21 year old? or should they just roll over and accept whatever the 21 year old wants?

How about armed vs unarmed?

Fisticuffs, for the most part, is not a viable strategy against a baseball bat/pipe/knife etc.

Then if/when you add in multiple assailants (Hollywood/Hong Kong kung-fu movies notwithstanding), unarmed options are even less appealing.

Now none of this factors in people (like myself and countless others) who enjoy shooting sports. On any given weekend, you can find me:

1) competing in the NSSF Rimfire Challenge
2) shooting/competing in sporting clays
3) competing in precision rimfire shooting
4) competing in a high power rifle match
5) competing in the odd IDPA, USPSA or (for shits and giggles) a Zombie match.
6) instructing people in safe firearm operations and/or these types of events.

or something else (I am always open to trying something new). None of which pose a direct threat to anything other than paper/cardboard/clay/steel targets.

BTW: have you ever tried one (or more of these)? You might find it enjoyable: a test of your hand/eye coordination. Many people start out a little apprehensive and jittery but by the end of most sessions they are determined to hit the darn target one more time.

[librarylu]

41. The Bill of Rights is not Holy Writ

The Framers were dealing with situations like Virginia wanting the right to raise militiae to quell slave uprisings. We hardly have any of those any more. Did they forsee the situation we have now with kids dying from gunshots on a nearly daily basis? If they had they might have worded the 2nd a little differently.

Why does no one mention the 3rd any more?

I would like the right to go to Walmart and not see a gun counter but I can't find that one in the Constitution.

I'm less than enthused over the 2nd Ammendment rights of people who think the Declaration of Independence gives them the right to overthrow our government.

I'm still an idealist hoping for a gun-free world, war no more and a cure for death but I'm not expecting any of that any time soon.

I don't understand why anyone would want damned guns in the first place. I've survived several life-threatening situations with no weapons but words. Your mileage may vary.

[beevul]

86. "I would like the right to go to Walmart and not see a gun counter..."

I would like the right to go to Walmart and not see a gun counter but I can't find that one in the Constitution.

You have that right.

Close your eyes every time you get near it, and you wont see it.



You DON'T have the right to decide for everyone else that the "gun counter" not be there, however.

I don't understand why anyone would want damned guns in the first place. I've survived several life-threatening situations with no weapons but words.

That's the anti-gun version of "I got mine, good luck".

[librarylu]

89. There was a time

when family-oriented Walmart didn't sell guns. Sales were sagging so.......

After Sandy Hook I did sign petitions asking Walmart to stop selling AK15s. I don't know if anything came of it. Did I not have a right to do that? I may have a right to decide the gun counter should not be there but I don't have the power to get it removed. There's a gun store in town; people wouldn't be too inconvenienced.

The gun store used to be my favorite hardware store until they gave up #2 screwdrivers and tomato plants and went all guns instead. They now look barricaded and closed. Maybe they are closed. I can only hope.

Is it okay for me to change channels when the damned gun commercials come on?

I do better than close my eyes near Walmart's gun counter. I avoid that whole half of the store.

What does "That's the anti-gun version of 'I got mine, good luck' " mean? In addition to being shot by my loving husband (who'd consumed a bottle of whiskey sold to him by my best friend in Al-Anon) I've been through four armed robberies and had a gun aimed at me twice more (same husband in two different blackouts). There've been two home burglaries in two different states (I wasn't home at the time) and another armed robbery on a store I owned when I wasn't there. I know from experience that if I'd had a gun and gone for it at the very least I'd have lost the gun too. I live almost next door to a woman who may be certifiable but has a shotgun and "knows how to use it". I know she does since she once pulled it on a former friend of mine.

I refuse to live in perpetual fear. Now, what are all the good reasons for owning guns again? Plinking? Shooting defenseless animals? 2nd Amendment says so? Other?

[gejohnston]

91. they stopped selling them because

they bought high and now have to sell at a loss, they can't compete with mom and pop gun stores.

Did I not have a right to do that? I may have a right to decide the gun counter should not be there but I don't have the power to get it removed.

No you don't anymore than some fundie has the right to demand the abortion clinic has to go.
Given Wal Mart's lousy service and poor selection, it is rapidly becoming a non issue simply because it seems to be the one area where they can't compete with local stores. If you want The WM near me has tons of shotgun shells made by a French company called Estate. It costs more than the American and Czech made shells from the LGS.

[librarylu]

93. The Walmart near me

is thriving. They cleaned up a heavily polluted site and built a really nice superstore. I have my qualms about Walmart but they were awfully nice to put one right off my exit so I don't have to burn excess fossil fuel driving all over town for milk and clothes.

Fundies and I have the right to demand, protest, carry signs and all that. Are you denying me my 1st Amendment rights?

[gejohnston]

94. not at all,

you can petition all you want. They also have the right to tell you and the fundies "no dice".
I'm not knocking WM per se, just that I would never buy a gun from them.

[librarylu]

95. Neither would I

I never thought about asking them to remove the gun counter. Maybe I should try that sometime.

[gejohnston]

96. they have what, a couple of

skeet shotguns and a couple of old school hunting rifles? Maybe a kid's Cricket?

[librarylu]

98. I haven't looked lately

Last time I walked by there was a large rack full of long guns - rifles, I presume. I don't know what was in the case. Ammo? Hand guns?

I went right to automotive, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Have I mentioned that all these years later I still can't stand to look at guns and jump every 4th of July?

[gejohnston]

99. I don't think they sell handguns

ammo and other outdoorsy stuff. A large rack? That is unusual from what I have seen.

[librarylu]

101. I hope it is unusual.

I'll force myself the next time I go in for groceries to go see what's in the case. I'd really rather look at bicycles, though.

[edgineered]

19. Yes, we are well aware that PTSD and alcohol problems

are key indicators of being a gun owner or a vet. There are no other possibilities. And don't worry about the dinner invite, because with knowing that killing either plant or animal may be offensive to some, the water from your own solar powered RO system is probably better than what I could serve.

I hope the DU gun owners/veterans don't have full blown, late onset PTSD and/or severe problems with alcohol.

[librarylu]

42. I'm on a shared well

You're making light of my nightmare, it seems. I'd be happy to show you my scars but it looks like dinner is out.

[edgineered]

2. I spent three enlistments willing to take a bullet. And you?

I don't even own one now, but the times are changing thanks to some so willing to force their opinion on me.

[BlueJazz]

3. Why don't we just make them weigh 375 pounds? Not very many people will be totin' them around.

[gejohnston]

97. sure

[Travis_0004]

4. Want to buy a car? Get in a 60 mph crash

make people understand the danger of distracted driving.

It would probably save a few lives.

It might also kill a few during the testing but that is the price you gotta pay.

[virginia mountainman]

5. You know, the NRA is not sounding very extreme anymore...nt

[Travis_0004]

8. And people wonder why we cant have a civil conversation

BRB. Going to drown so Im allowed to keep my pool.

[appal_jack]

25. And what about chain saws?

Do I need to amputate a limb in order to prove my eligibility?



Funny, education, due exercise of caution, and proper safety gear have usually worked for me, with chain saws, firearms, and many other dangerous tools. But, to each their own...



-app

[GGJohn]

7. This has got to be the most dumbass article ever.

The NRA must be laughing their asses off, all of a sudden, they don't look so out of touch.

[edgineered]

9. Had this post been in the Humor group it would be pinned. nt

[w0nderer]

10. been shot, lucked out 2 stitches

been shot at


still own
.22 lr for plinking and pot food
....
that's it

[pablo_marmol]

11. Possibly the most moronic (and nasty) article I have ever read on "gun control".......

.......and MAN --- that's saying a LOT!!

Our brain-dead young author needs to read up on the role of weapons and their effectiveness during the Civil Rights Movement.

[ileus]

13. probably looking for a spot on bloomies mommie board.

[pablo_marmol]

37. There it is. NT

[ileus]

12. The anti's sure a violent bunch, kinda goes along with the authoritarian way of life

I suppose.


When the people won't accept your rule shoot them....I've heard of this somewhere before I believe.

[dairydog91]

16. Want a swimming pool? Drown one of your kids in it.

[Eleanors38]

20. Yes, there are some people in Salon who shouldn't have guns.

Bad logic. It's what's for dinner.

[Lizzie Poppet]

21. Breathtakingly moronic, even for Salon.

And that's setting one low-ass motherfucking bar...

[Brickbat]

22. Well, that's gross and extreme.

[SecularMotion]

23. Seems reasonable

Don't cops shoot each other with tasers for training purposes?

[sarisataka]

26. Do they also

shoot each other with guns?

[SecularMotion]

27. Yes

[sarisataka]

28. Note it is not titled

REASONABLE Russian Counter Terror Confidence Drill

[oneshooter]

24. Been shot at a lot

only been hit twice. Still carry metal from a 122mm rocket in my lungs and back, does that count?

[Straw Man]

29. Salon just jumped the shark.

Badly.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. If you're going to jump a shark you should be eaten by one first.

[Straw Man]

84. Touché.

[Silicosys4]

30. Let's explore D Watkins credentials

From another article by D. Watkins;

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/13/gunplay_is_all_i_know/

"It’s easier to get a gun than a job in east Baltimore. I went to Fat Hands and Naked’s crib with $300 and came out with a two-toned .45 that had a cracked safety. For a few more $100’s I could got a Glock, or a dirty Desert Eagle."
"I’m not a gangster and could not care less about weapon shows or trips to a shooting range, but I have two guns. I don’t want them, but I need them to protect my family. I need them for the multiple Second Amendment abusers who foolishly think pulling a trigger isn’t cowardly. I need them because African-American murderers are a diverse group, and most important, I need them because the media and mainstream America only get emotional over mass suburban shootings that involve non-blacks while we are in slums getting popped every day."

So this former gangbanger who admits in the article he sold heroin and illegally purchased a handgun off the street at age 14, wants law abiding gun owners to be shot.
Forgive me for not jumping on board here.

[librarylu]

50. He graduated from Johns Hopkins

Now he teaches at Coppin State. He's an inspiration. I want to read more of his writing.

"In February, his 'Too Poor for Pop Culture' essay went viral almost immediately after it appeared on the website Salon. It's a vivid meditation about how little pop culture matters to the people who live paycheck to paycheck. Two more essays followed—'How Glamorizing Drugs Is Killing Black Kids' and 'Poor Black People Don't Work? Lessons of a Former Dope Dealer'—that people eagerly shared and tweeted. Here was a guy writing about people wagering on junky fights, playing cards in a room with bedsheets for walls, and losing friends to guns and drugs. His voice was lively and witty, his observations detailed, and his bluntness sobering. On entering a friend's house to play cards: 'Two taps on the door, it opened and the gang was all there—four disenfranchised African-Americans posted up in a 9 x 11 prison-size tenement, one of those spots where you enter the front door, take a half-step, and land in the yard.' "

http://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2014/fall/d-watkins-baltimore-writer

I like his bluntness.

[gejohnston]

35. [[[[

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/02/22/ballistic-vest-designer-shoots-employees-point-blank/

[sarisataka]

43. That is impressive

even stooping penetration, the impact would be about a stuff punch worth of energy. The lack of reaction indicates the jacket helped spread that over a wide area.

[librarylu]

47. Good article

I shared it on Facebook. Thanks for posting.

I knew a couple in California who got into an argument and shot each other dead. My former husband's best friend (also a Nam vet) killed his wife and then himself with a shotgun leaving their 5-year-old an orphan. My husband had already shot me through the right forearm and neck with a .357 Magnum while in a blackout. I finally had to vanish 12 1/2 years later when something similar happened again. Ironically the jailer who was on both times shot himself in the thigh at a gun show. We didn't live anywhere near Baltimore.

I flinch every time I have to sell a concealed carry vest or a 2nd Amendment T-shirt along with jewelry and footgear. I've had to sell concealed carry purses to out-of-shape old ladies who were going to defend themselves against muggers in Miami. What, I wondered, would happen if someone snatched the purse? A customer walked in one day wearing a Confederate hat and a 2nd Amendment T-shirt and started railing on about his rights. Like I care? Why should I have to listen to that? I almost quit my job when I saw an NRA envelope addressed to my boss. Apparently it contained membership materials. I've made a point of telling him about the latest kid killing every time I read about one on DU. At least he no longer tells me when he goes to a gun show.

For me it's not about a discussion of some abstract "rights". It's about real people bleeding and dying and the damage and pain even after the surgeon has done his work. We have an epidemic. What can we do about it?

[pablo_marmol]

51. "We have an epidemic."

No --- that it false. Mass shooting have increased, but since those represent such a small percentage of overall gun murders they don't even create a blip on a graph.

Do your homework. Gun violence - like all crime - has been dropping since 1993......and murder is now 1/2 of what it was that year. How on earth do The Controllers think they can get away with brazenly lying on this subject without incurring a heavy political cost?! There is no "epidemic of violence". What there is, in fact, is a pandemic of propaganda.

The original post - as well as your response to it - is the reason that the NRA will NEVER face a shortage of cash.

[librarylu]

52. ?

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Oh, I guess it's just a minor outbreak then. Tell it to the victims.

When I was in school the worst I had to fear was spitwads. I hope my grandkids fare as well.

[pablo_marmol]

55. "Tell it to the victims."

There it is.......the poorly veiled innuendo that RKBA-supporting Dems who call out Controllers on lies are lacking the "compassion gene".

Wild swing and a miss. And ANOTHER example of why restriction supporters are losing support with every passing year, as the NRA rakes in the cash as the insults are hurled. Coupled - of course - with the loss of Democratic congressional seats. Bravo, I say......BRAVO!



http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

[librarylu]

79. Color me compassionate

but I think ANY is too much.

It is too easy to get guns in our society, too easy to use them, too easy to leave them lying around loaded.

Is this all the NRA's fault? Probably not. I actually voted in the midterms and didn't see anyone carrying at the polling place. I did notice the voters were all old and there weren't many of them.

I don't think I did anything to cause my boss to order 2nd Amendment T-shirts for the store (no mention of militiae on them) or to join the NRA if indeed he did. I find the NRA fearmongering offensive and it scares the hell out of me when some old out-of-shape lady tells me everyone in America is going to have to be armed.

So what's your problem? You don't like it that I shared something from my personal experience? I haven't been engaging in gun debates so I don't know what my proper rhetoric is supposed to be.

I'm wondering where all the other gun control advocates are in this discussion.* From other threads I surmise they've put the RKBAers on ignore. I wonder why.

There's been a decline in traffic deaths too but people still die. We require licensing and safer automobiles and insurance. Most people don't try to kill each other with swimming pools AFAIK.

*ETA: Oh, there's one! Good job he's doing, too. Carry on.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. If you're compassionate why do you want to criminalize people who are not a threat?

[librarylu]

87. Who said anything about criminalizing anyone?

The people I've known who shot someone weren't threats until they were. The couple owned a riding stable, my ex's friend was a househusband who made bookshelves for sale.

Would a buyback criminalize anyone? Would making it difficult to buy a deadly weapon criminalize anyone? What about permits and background checks and a requirement to carry insurance and take safety classes to maintain a gun owner's license? Would cracking down on gun show loopholes and private sales criminalize anyone? What about keeping guns out of the hands of toddlers so they can't shoot mommy at Walmart?

I'm hoping that someday guns will be as obsolete as X-ray machines in shoe stores and radium for health and happiness.

Would I like to see a giant pile of guns melted down? Yes. Do I think it's going to happen? No. Do I understand why people think they have to have guns in the first place? No. Absolutely not.

There may be a big rush to buy more guns after every school shooting but there's also an increase in the number of people who think we need stricter gun laws. We're 55% according to Gallup polling:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/19/poll-support-for-stricter-gun-laws-jumps-up-just-like-after-sandy-hook/

Maybe we can outraise the NRA moneywise.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. There is no gunshow loophole.

[librarylu]

90. There isn't?

Maybe the map is out of date or lying to us?

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

[gejohnston]

92. Most of the gun sellers

are federally licensed dealers. All federal laws apply be it at a gun show or the store. To that degree, it doesn't exist. What the map shows is intra state private sales, regardless of it is at a gun show or a newspaper ad. Restricting that on the federal level would violate the commerce clause. Doing it on a state level usually draws law enforcement opposition because it can't be enforced and they have better things to do.
It is one thing to support something in principle, it is yet another to support the actual wording of the law. For example in Washington, defines "transfer" very vaguely. In order to follow the law, Brinks crews either have to take their company owned guns home with them, OR
meet the company armorer at a gun store and go through a background check to receive his pistol before going on his route. At the end of the day, meet the armorer back at the gun store and the armorer goes though a back ground check for each pistol turned in. Ten armored cars, two to a truck, the armorer goes through twenty BGC a day. That's stupid.

BTW, UBCs banned "buybacks" because no FFL holder is going to sit there and do a background check on the Ceasefire volunteer or a cop every five minutes.

[librarylu]

102. If there's no loophole

why introduce a bill?

http://thehill.com/regulation/242538-bill-would-require-background-checks-for-private-sales-at-gun-show

Did the bill run afoul of the commerce clause? What happened to it?

[gejohnston]

105. Political grandstanding

if someone challenged in court, it would be struck down.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

104. The gun show is immaterial; it's private sales which you cannot track without registration.

Since you have all this information readily accessible - What percentage of guns used in crimes come from gun shows?

[librarylu]

106. I'm not even concerned about crime.

As you know, I've been a victim of crime. I survived and called the police. Well, we trusted them back then. The detectives who've taken my statements were very nice. One robber was even caught, did time and made restitution.

I'm concerned about accidents, domestic violence, kids shooting kids (or parents), school shootings.....that sort of thing.

What can be done to make things safer? Or is there nothing that can be done because of this or that amendment and "stuff happens"?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

107. "I'm concerned about accidents, domestic violence, kids shooting kids (or parents), school shootings

Accidents can be dealt with the same way we deal with life-altering "accidents" that happen with regards to sex: Frank, open, unembarrassed discussion; not hiding and pretending "nice kids don't do this sort of thing."

As for malicious criminals -- you can't prevent them but you can be prepared if they invade your life.

[librarylu]

108. Prepared how?

I was advised by a detective to "cooperate, cooperate, cooperate 'til it hurts. You don't know what these guys may be on." Money is replaceable. Life isn't.

This is stirring up a lot of stuff for me. If I'm going to stay on DU I think I need to go find some kitteh .gifs.

Please do continue frank, open discussion on accident prevention, especially for kids.

"The study found the victims of gun accidents were boys 81 percent of the time. In about two-thirds of cases, the victim was shot by someone else. In those cases, 97 percent of the time the shooter was male. And more than 90 percent of the time, the shooter was family or a friend. About 19 percent of victims were shot in the homes of friends, and 11 percent of deaths involved hunting. It was very rare for an adult who's not a family member to be accidentally shot by or accidentally shoot a child.

Time and time again, the shootings followed a similar pattern: A child found a parent's stray gun, played with it, and accidentally fired it, killing himself or a bystander. It's an absolute tragedy, one that could be easily prevented if firearms were stored more safely."

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9539263/children-die-accidental-shootings

[Nuclear Unicorn]

109. Sometimes cooperation is not an option.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

85. Watkins might make a good journalist...

...if he would only grow the hell up.