Ho hum, another day, another mass shooting in the US.

[Curious George]

Yep.

Good then we needn't quibble over studies that show a statistically significant decrease, we instead can focus on the actual numbers regardless of whether the study found correlation or not.

I don't accept the premise of the question because we don't agree that unlimited access to firearms is a fundamental right. If a policy saves hundreds or thousands of lives, that's worth quite a bit to me. You?

The premise of the question did not assert that "unlimited access to firearms is a fundamental right." Now that this is cleared, i await your answer when you return.

 

[Shaul]

Ho hum, another day another American protects himself and his family from bodily harm and theft by using his 2nd Amendment rights.

6 teens tried to rob a house, police say. After the homeowner shot and killed 1, the others were charged with murder - CNN

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Ho hum, another day another American protects himself and his family from bodily harm and theft by using his 2nd Amendment rights.

6 teens tried to rob a house, police say. After the homeowner shot and killed 1, the others were charged with murder - CNN

Because everyone committing B+E is intent on doing "bodily harm"

But sure, believe whatever paranoid bunker fallacy that enables your gun culture, I guess. No way a decent security system would have deterred teenagers, no, lethal force is the ONLY and BEST possible solution.

But hey, cool appeal to anecdote.

 

[Curious George]

Because everyone committing B+E is intent on doing "bodily harm"

But sure, believe whatever paranoid bunker fallacy that enables your gun culture, I guess. No way a decent security system would have deterred teenagers, no, lethal force is the ONLY and BEST possible solution.

Most likely felony murder. I disagree with felony murder in instances like these.

 

[Shaul]

Because everyone committing B+E is intent on doing "bodily harm"

But sure, believe whatever paranoid bunker fallacy that enables your gun culture, I guess. No way a decent security system would have deterred teenagers, no, lethal force is the ONLY and BEST possible solution.

But hey, cool appeal to anecdote.

So bodily injures during break-ins are ok so long as they didn’t intend for them to happen. Brilliant! You do know that according to law a robber is responsible for all ensuing injuries that happen regardless of their intentions, right?

 

[Curious George]

Because everyone committing B+E is intent on doing "bodily harm"

But sure, believe whatever paranoid bunker fallacy that enables your gun culture, I guess. No way a decent security system would have deterred teenagers, no, lethal force is the ONLY and BEST possible solution.

But hey, cool appeal to anecdote.

Consider this. Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia

You understand that the only person responsible for your protection is you. There are plenty of other cases like this. And those who promote gun control would happily deny these victims access to efficient and effective tools of self defense.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So bodily injures during break-ins are ok so long as they didn’t intend for them to happen. Brilliant! You do know that according to law a robber is responsible for all ensuing injuries that happen regardless of their intentions, right?

If you want to participate in a discussion, starting with "So(blatant misrepresentation of point/claim I said something I never even remotely alluded to) is a poor way to go about it. When you're ready to discuss things I say, rather than having a conversation by yourself based on imaginary things you wish I'd said, I'm more than willing to converse with you.

Nice appeal to legalism, by the way. Shocking that a Jew who apologises for concentration camps uses "it's the law, therefore it's right" arguments

 

[oldbadger]

No it won't, because there will be no ban.

Ban? There have been bans already.
There could be more.
But mandatory training, testing, Criminal checks, Psycho-review, home security and gun safes, public liability insurance, licensing and police checks seem reasonable, and don't affect your Constitution.??

Would you be worried about any of those?

Constitutional right that will not be infringed upon.

Well, infringements have already happened..... so... ?

 

[Enoch07]

There have been bans already.

Only on class 3 weapons and above. But with a $5,000 a year license you can own those legally.

There could be more.

Nah

But mandatory training, testing, Criminal checks, Psycho-review, home security and gun safes, public liability insurance, licensing and police checks seem reasonable, and don't affect your Constitution.

Doesn't effect the constitution and they are reasonable requirements. Though licensing is only need for conceal carry and class 3 + weapons. Most states allow open carry via the constitution.

Would you be worried about any of those?

Nope and I've already done them. To obtain a conceal carry license you need to submit for finger printing and a criminal back ground check. Not only have I taken basic gun safety course I can instruct them.

Well, infringements have already happened..... so... ?

Nope, only way to lose your gun rights is to become a criminal. And that solely on the person/criminal to keep that right.

 

[oldbadger]

Ho hum, another day another American protects himself and his family from bodily harm and theft by using his 2nd Amendment rights.

6 teens tried to rob a house, police say. After the homeowner shot and killed 1, the others were charged with murder - CNN

Sad incident.
Question:-
Why did the elderly pensioner go outside his house?
He must surely have wanted such a confrontation if he did that.

 

[oldbadger]

Only on class 3 weapons and above. But with a $5,000 a year license you can own those legally.

Nah

There.......... you see?
Previous bans, and there are bans on bore (barrel) size, I seem to remember?

Doesn't effect the constitution and they are reasonable requirements. Though licensing is only need for conceal carry and class 3 + weapons. Most states allow open carry via the constitution.

Nope and I've already done them. To obtain a conceal carry license you need to submit for finger printing and a criminal back ground check. Not only have I taken basic gun safety course I can instruct them.

You're halfway there already.
And so... mandatory training and testing, Crim-check, Psych-eval, Home security and gun safe inspection, Mandatory 3rd party Liability insurance, snap home checks..... none of these common sense requirements can impinge on your Constitution whilst making a difference to gun injuries and crimes. Eventually the gun murder stats would reduce.

It makes sense.

What doesn't make sense right now is that idiots can buy guns and rifles and use them without having to have 3rd party liability insurance. Example: Some clown who shoots a gun which injures or kills a person by accident, tort or crime, can (in addition to criminal indictment) be sued for civil damages but if there is no money to pay damages awarded by a Court then the victim's horrendous costs can't be met. Crazy. Ridiculous. Third World stuff.

Nope, only way to lose your gun rights is to become a criminal. And that solely on the person/criminal to keep that right.

Well....... the US public does seem to be moving slowly towards wishing for some weapons to be more tightly controlled than that. That's up to the US people to sort out.

 

[Enoch07]

Previous bans, and there are bans on bore (barrel) size, I seem to remember?

No ban in bore size For $2,000 I can grab a bolt action .50 cal rifle from the local gun shop that can penetrate tank armor. No licensing or extras needed. Same as buying a .22 cal LR.

You're halfway there already.

Hardly.

Crim-check, Psych-eval, Home security and gun safe inspection, Mandatory 3rd party Liability insurance, snap home checks..... none of these common sense requirements can impinge on your Constitution whilst making a difference to gun injuries and crimes. Eventually the gun murder stats would reduce.

Differnet requirement for different states. I wasn't required to take gun safety course but I took it anyways because I wanted to. Gun safe inspection isn't a requirement nor does it need to be, unless maybe children are present in the home imo. I don't have to worry about that. Don't have to worry about 3rd party insurance either, or home snap checks.

It makes sense.

Some do some don't its nuanced.

What doesn't make sense right now is that idiots can buy guns and rifles and use them without having to have 3rd party liability insurance

All the more reason to take my gun safety course to know how to properly handle your weapon. 42 years (that's my age) and not a single misfire or accident. Haven't ever had to shoot anyone either thankfully. I have had to draw it once, but luckily the a-hole backed off before I blew a hole in him the size of a basketball. That crackhead made the wisest decision he had ever made up to that point.

Example: Some clown who shoots a gun which injures or kills a person by accident, tort or crime, can (in addition to criminal indictment) be sued for civil damages but if there is no money to pay damages awarded by a Court then the victim's horrendous costs can't be met.

With great power comes great responsibility. That's why its important for gun owners to be responsible and not clown around with their guns.


BUT

All of this is irrelevant to criminals that obtain weapons illegally.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Sad incident.
Question:-
Why did the elderly pensioner go outside his house?
He must surely have wanted such a confrontation if he did that.

So many of these "SEE?! People DO need their gunz for self defence! See!?" type cherry picked anecdotes seem to have been escalated largely by the fact that someone had a gun. One in particular I remember (many thousands of shootings ago) was a case where some guy hammered on a young lady's door in the middle of the night. She opened the door, he barged in, so she shot him. All the gun fetish types wet themselves with glee over it as an example of "self defence". Never once did any of them ask "why did she open the door in the first place?" Similar stories happen over and over again.

Now, I don't doubt that there ARE legitimate cases where someone breaks into a house with the express intent to do harm, and a gun was used to save a life. But...
A. How many of those people had a gun, but inadequate security generally? Would a decent security door and screens have stopped the would be harm doer from entry in the first place?
And
B. I sincerely suspect that the number of genuine, bonafide "it was him or me, and he broke in through my security door, explicitly to do me harm" cases are far fewer than the number of people who get killed accidently or wrongfully by firearms. So yes, while I fully accept and agree that anyone who gets harmed by someone breaking in past a security system because they didn't have a gun is an absolute tragedy, simple "greatest good for greatest number" ethical arguments apply. If one life is legitimately and unambiguously saved at a rate less than the number of people wrongfully getting shot, the self defence argument loses its validity, IMHO.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Then there's this;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...aGbsBuXcxzby8w0hUQnYGlkrCXH2_XVyG3niKk_qjmcmA

Black teens were fundraising for their football team. Then a white woman held them at gunpoint, police say.

 

[oldbadger]

No ban in bore size For $2,000 I can grab a bolt action .50 cal rifle from the local gun shop that can penetrate tank armor. No licensing or extras needed. Same as buying a .22 cal LR.

I think you've got that wrong.
I've shot bigger guns than you are ever likely to.. so I know about these fellas.......
Big Bore punt guns were banned in most States during the 19th century. I don't think you can use one in the US today, but correct me if I'm wrong.
So there's another ban in the USA.

Differnet requirement for different states. I wasn't required to take gun safety course but I took it anyways because I wanted to. Gun safe inspection isn't a requirement nor does it need to be, unless maybe children are present in the home imo. I don't have to worry about that. Don't have to worry about 3rd party insurance either, or home snap checks.

I reckon that the whole list should be in place.... all of it.

You haven't got 3rd part all risks insurance?
No insurance is Crazy!

42 years (that's my age) and not a single misfire or accident.

I've been driving for 53 years and no problems, but I have full comprehensive insurance cover on any vehicle that drive. What did not happen yesterday means nothing, absolutely nothing.

You go get some all risks 3td part public liability insurance is my suggestion. That's a mature thing to do.

With great power comes great responsibility. That's why its important for gun owners to be responsible and not clown around with their guns.

Many deaths occur every year through irresponsible use of guns, from daft accidents to wrong decisions. Everybody needs to be covered so that Court awards for damages can actually be paid out.

Some modern bullets can tear off a limb simply by brushing past it, and guns can have ranges of miles.......... Insurance is a must, I reckon.

BUT
All of this is irrelevant to criminals that obtain weapons illegally.

Using a gun with no insurance should be a criminal offence.

 

[oldbadger]

So many of these "SEE?! People DO need their gunz for self defence! See!?" type cherry picked anecdotes seem to have been escalated largely by the fact that someone had a gun. One in particular I remember (many thousands of shootings ago) was a case where some guy hammered on a young lady's door in the middle of the night. She opened the door, he barged in, so she shot him. All the gun fetish types wet themselves with glee over it as an example of "self defence". Never once did any of them ask "why did she open the door in the first place?" Similar stories happen over and over again.

Now, I don't doubt that there ARE legitimate cases where someone breaks into a house with the express intent to do harm, and a gun was used to save a life. But...
A. How many of those people had a gun, but inadequate security generally? Would a decent security door and screens have stopped the would be harm doer from entry in the first place?
And
B. I sincerely suspect that the number of genuine, bonafide "it was him or me, and he broke in through my security door, explicitly to do me harm" cases are far fewer than the number of people who get killed accidently or wrongfully by firearms. So yes, while I fully accept and agree that anyone who gets harmed by someone breaking in past a security system because they didn't have a gun is an absolute tragedy, simple "greatest good for greatest number" ethical arguments apply. If one life is legitimately and unambiguously saved at a rate less than the number of people wrongfully getting shot, the self defence argument loses its validity, IMHO.

Absolutely.
It looks as if that man grabbed up a gun and went outside for a confrontation. I want to follow that story all the way to Court to discover what REALLY happened.

I reckon that a lot of nuts are obsessed with their gun's power and how it can enable their egos, and half a chance to pick it up and see its effect upon others is just too much of a temptation.

They don't seem to have 3rd party insurance. You can get £12 million Public Liability cover for about £30 if you join a gun club in the UK. I expect that insurance is available in the USA but nobody seems to think that they will ever make a mistake.

I don't know why we're still writing about this particular incident involving six law enforcers because more might have occurred in the last couple of days. In any case an average of 120 killings and murders will have happened since you posted this thread, and that does not include suicides.

 

[Enoch07]

I think you've got that wrong

Nah, I just don't want or need to have the use of a gun that can weigh up to 250 lbs.

Impractical.

I've shot bigger guns than you are ever likely to.. so I know about these fellas.......
Big Bore punt guns were banned in most States during the 19th century.

Again a 100 lbs + gun is useless for a single unit that needs to be light on their feet for travel.

. I don't think you can use one in the US today, but correct me if I'm wrong.
So there's another ban in the USA.

Nope but nobody care either. I'd put my .50 cal BMG against your punt gun any day. Heck I'd put my British .303 rifle against your punt gun any day. Those things are obsolete relics.

I reckon that the whole list should be in place.... all of it.

Your opinion your allowed to have it.

You haven't got 3rd part all risks insurance?
No insurance is Crazy!

Why pay for something I don't need.

I've been driving for 53 years and no problems, but I have full comprehensive insurance cover on any vehicle that drive. What did not happen yesterday means nothing, absolutely nothing.

Good for you.

You go get some all risks 3td part public liability insurance is my suggestion. That's a mature thing to do.

Nah

Many deaths occur every year through irresponsible use of guns, from daft accidents to wrong decisions.

More deaths from swimming pool accidents.

Some modern bullets can tear off a limb simply by brushing past it, and guns can have ranges of miles.......... Insurance is a must, I reckon.

I know, I use R.I.P rounds in my .45 cal 1911 everyday conceal carry.

Evil lil boogers!

Using a gun with no insurance should be a criminal offence.

Nah

 

[oldbadger]

Nah, I just don't want or need to have the use of a gun that can weigh up to 250 lbs.

Impractical.

Again a 100 lbs + gun is useless for a single unit that needs to be light on their feet for travel.

This isn't about you!
I told you that other bans exist, such as big bore guns, and you said 'No'.

You were wrong.
Simple as.

And there you are, comparing a 1lb punt gun top something else, all about your own little world. You're just narrow focused.

And if you're using a gun uninsured, then you need you to mature somewhat, imo.

 

[oldbadger]

Then there's this;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...aGbsBuXcxzby8w0hUQnYGlkrCXH2_XVyG3niKk_qjmcmA

Black teens were fundraising for their football team. Then a white woman held them at gunpoint, police say.

I'll bet a few manslaughters happen that way.
Hysterical nuts clinging to guns.

 

[oldbadger]

Consider this. Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia
And those who promote gun control would happily deny these victims access to efficient and effective tools of self defense.

I don't believe that.
That looks like total dis-information to me.

If a householder is of good character, trains, is tested, is insured, has good home security..... nobody would deny them a gun if they wanted one.

That's just hyper bull-dust.