Lawrence Hunter Explains the 2nd Amendment

[ctdonath]

Originally Posted by zioxide

why are so many people opposed to making guns safer and reducing the number of needless gun deaths?

In light of your comparisons, the same effort is made. Accidental gun deaths are, in fact, very rare - in part thanks to considerable efforts in the industry to improve the technology such that they do not "go off" without deliberate action, and do not suffer catastrophic failure when used as designed.

You're conflating "accidental" with "deliberate". When someone picks up a gun, points it at someone, and pulls the trigger, all by choice, there is nothing accidental about it. The problem isn't the device, it's the user choosing to kill.

You're trying to solve a problem with humans by regulating non-humans. Doesn't work.

You got a source to back up this claim?

FBI statistics. Look it up.

And here I thought freedom was being able to live your life day to day without worrying some idiot around the next corner with his gun is having a mental breakdown and about to go on a killing spree.

Freedom isn't about living worry-free, it's about being able to do something legitimate without restraint or punishment. I'm not worried about some idiot around the next corner with his gun/knife/gasoline/bat/hands/car/whatever about to go on a killing spree because I can stop him. Funny, you didn't hear about several other mass killings shortly after the Newtown massacre precisely because there WERE armed citizens who stopped them before the body counts reached front-page levels. Yes, they happened.

The solution isn't to disarm everyone, because evil people will find a way. The biggest massacres in the USA weren't with guns.
The solution isn't to post armed guards everywhere, because that's impractical and has many undesirable consequences as you indicate.
The solution is to let upstanding citizens have the tools they need to stop violent evil - a solution which is very effective, enough so that you don't even realize how common it is and how often it works.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

FBI statistics. Look it up.

You made the claim, you have to back it up with evidence as per the forum rules.

[ctdonath]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

This is a question I have been wondering for a long time about gun owners. How do they keep things safe for children in the house but still accessible and ready enough to be used to fight off an intruder?

"Fast-open safes" exist. Takes about 1 second to open mine, yet would take anyone else at best hours to "crack" it with competence & dexterity (which toddlers don't have). Mechanical ones have thousands of combinations; electronic ones will shut down for considerable time after a few failed attempts. Recent models include fingerprint scanners.

As for babysitters: don't leave your kids with anyone not competent & capable to protect them.

Speaking of kids, here's a statistic for ya:
The majority of children abducted by strangers are dead within 4 hours.
Most of the rest, within 24 hours.
If you witness an abduction, you're the kid's last hope. What would you need to stop that abduction?

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

"Fast-open safes" exist. Takes about 1 second to open mine, yet would take anyone else at best hours to "crack" it with competence & dexterity (which toddlers don't have). Mechanical ones have thousands of combinations; electronic ones will shut down for considerable time after a few failed attempts. Recent models include fingerprint scanners.

As for babysitters: don't leave your kids with anyone not competent & capable to protect them.

Speaking of kids, here's a statistic for ya:
The majority of children abducted by strangers are dead within 4 hours.
Most of the rest, within 24 hours.
If you witness an abduction, you're the kid's last hope. What would you need to stop that abduction?

The problem - especially with accidental deaths/suicides, etc. - is that the guns aren't in these "safes". An example would be the shooter in CT. He obviously was able to gain access to his mother's guns. Now, of course we have no idea how they were stored, but they didn't do a very good job of protecting her, did they?

If every single person who owned a gun had these types of safes/gun cabinets, a lot of lives would be saved. However, there are just too many irresponsible gun owners right now.

And in terms of abduction - how many abductions occur with witnesses? A gun won't help if everyone is asleep. And how comfortable would you feel shooting at someone who is holding a child? Would I do whatever it takes if I witnessed someone taking my children? Of course I would - but I also wouldn't want to shoot them accidentally either. Everything sounds good in theory - but who knows how we would react when something like that is going down.

[ctdonath]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

You made the claim, you have to back it up with evidence as per the forum rules.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publicatio...aspx?id=162693
"The results of this survey, as well as an analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), indicate that defensive gun use is very common in the United States and that it is probably substantially more common than criminal gun use. ... Findings indicated that regulatory measures that effectively reduce gun availability among the noncriminal majority also would reduce defensive gun uses that would otherwise have saved lives, prevented injuries, thwarted rape attempts, driven off burglars, and helped victims retain their property."

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publicatio...aspx?id=162693
"The results of this survey, as well as an analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), indicate that defensive gun use is very common in the United States and that it is probably substantially more common than criminal gun use. ... Findings indicated that regulatory measures that effectively reduce gun availability among the noncriminal majority also would reduce defensive gun uses that would otherwise have saved lives, prevented injuries, thwarted rape attempts, driven off burglars, and helped victims retain their property."

So you've gone from, "FBI statistics, look it up" to a self-reporting telephone survey from a discredited criminologist.

[ctdonath]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

He obviously was able to gain access to his mother's guns.

Anyone living in a household long enough learns how to get into anything if they put their mind to it. Locks have keys which can be found. Metal cases can be cut open. Combinations can be observed or threatened out of people.

You're quick to attribute "too many", without quantifying. Dig up the actual numbers; methinks you'll find them far lower than you imply.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

Anyone living in a household long enough learns how to get into anything if they put their mind to it. Locks have keys which can be found. Metal cases can be cut open. Combinations can be observed or threatened out of people.

You're quick to attribute "too many", without quantifying. Dig up the actual numbers; methinks you'll find them far lower than you imply.

All the more reason to ban people from owning guns when someone they want to get sectioned is living in the house.

[ctdonath]

Originally Posted by rdowns

discredited criminologist

That "discrediting" is laughable. Go do your own research; I've done mine, pardon me if I can't pull exact details with full referencing within minutes if you've no interest in doing the same.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

Anyone living in a household long enough learns how to get into anything if they put their mind to it. Locks have keys which can be found. Metal cases can be cut open. Combinations can be observed or threatened out of people.

You're quick to attribute "too many", without quantifying. Dig up the actual numbers; methinks you'll find them far lower than you imply.

That's a ridiculous excuse. If kids and other people can get access to someone else's guns, the owner is irresponsible. Period. And in the case of the shooter's mom - she may have been irresponsible in having them in the house at all.

I'll say again - if they weren't able to protect her, what was the point of owning them?

[skunk]

Originally Posted by CorvusCamenarum

Except there is no onus on the police to do such a thing. Protecting the public and protecting a member of the public are two very different things. Police have one duty, and that is to enforce the laws. This is what is meant by protecting the public.

Even according to the cases you quote from the "End Times Report" (is that really the best source you can come up with?) the police have a slightly broader remit than that.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Of course it is the job of the police to protect the public. However, in lawsuits where plaintiffs have sued police for failure to protect them from crimes, courts have ruled that police do not have the duty (in most cases) to protect people.

This is a way of protecting the police from litigation. But contrary to what some people will have you believe, the police do serve to protect the public. You just can't sue them if their protection falls short.

Thank you, that makes more sense: it's all about protection from the American lawsuit epidemic. Now I understand.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

That "discrediting" is laughable. Go do your own research; I've done mine, pardon me if I can't pull exact details with full referencing within minutes if you've no interest in doing the same.

Hey, you're the guy who said "FBI statistics, look them up". When asked to back up your claim, you posted a self-reporting, telephone survey as evidence of your claim. Nice try.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

Funny, you didn't hear about several other mass killings shortly after the Newtown massacre precisely because there WERE armed citizens who stopped them before the body counts reached front-page levels. Yes, they happened.

Really? There were several mass killings in the US within days of Newtown, all stopped by armed citizens, and they didn't get reported at all? Even by pro-gun sources? That's pretty darn amazing.

The solution is to let upstanding citizens have the tools they need to stop violent evil - a solution which is very effective, enough so that you don't even realize how common it is and how often it works.

OK. So can you define "upstanding citizen"? I have no problem with an "upstanding citizen" carrying a gun, if they meet my definition of upstanding citizen. However, I presume that my definition is quite different from yours.

Also, if I read the reply from drowns correctly, it stated around 2.5 million self defense cases by gun per year? That is 137 uses of self defense by gun every single day in every state, or 6,850 per day nationwide. I don't buy that for one second.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publicatio...aspx?id=162693
"The results of this survey, as well as an analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), indicate that defensive gun use is very common in the United States and that it is probably substantially more common than criminal gun use. ... Findings indicated that regulatory measures that effectively reduce gun availability among the noncriminal majority also would reduce defensive gun uses that would otherwise have saved lives, prevented injuries, thwarted rape attempts, driven off burglars, and helped victims retain their property."

Rebuttal ...

Gary Kleck

Criticism

A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, claimed that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns. Kleck claims that Hemenway's own surveys confirmed Kleck's conclusion that defensive gun use numbers at least in the hundreds of thousands each year, and that a far larger number of surveys (at least 20) have shown that defensive uses outnumbered criminal uses; however, the Hemenway study just cited gives no such figure and says in its conclusion, "We might expect that unlawful 'self-defense' gun uses will outnumber the legitimate and socially beneficial ones." Critics, including Hemenway, respond that these estimates are difficult to reconcile with comparable crime statistics, are subject to a high degree of sampling error, and that "because of differences in coverage and potential response errors, what exactly these surveys measure remains uncertain; mere repetition does not eliminate bias". In another article, Hemenway notes that Kleck has armed women preventing 40% of all sexual assaults, a percentage he considers unlikely because few women go armed. In the same article, Hemenway notes that Kleck's survey shows armed citizens wounding or killing attackers 207,000 times in one year, contrasted against the total of around 100,000 Americans wounded or killed, accidentally or intentionally, in a typical year.

Various studies have found that defensive gun uses occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that found by Kleck. In the article "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, the authors quote the National Crime Victim Survey as finding 108,000 DGUs per year. One section of the article compares the U.S. crime rate to the number of DGUs reported by Kleck and Kleck-like studies and concludes that their estimate of the DGUs is improbably high.[18] An article published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics says, "In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes ... On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft."

Kleck has responded to these criticisms, claiming that studies of methodological errors in surveys concerning other controversial behaviors consistently find that the errors produce, on net, underestimates of the frequency of the behaviors.

Further rebuttal ...



Stroke that gun Gary.

Stroke it.

[bobber205]

Funny how religiousness and gun obsessiveness goes together.

A reliance on a "artificial" protector.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

Nonetheless, they kill the same number of Americans every year. Dead is dead, regardless of intention. So you excuse automotive deaths as a cost of "convenience"?

:

I'm saying if you're up for banning guns due to attributed deaths, then you have to stay consistent and demand banning cars too.

I'm not giving up either, as both are vital to preserving my freedom.

From a utilitarian point of view, consideration of the possibility of better control of cars is warranted, just as discussion of better control of guns is warranted. Both technologies give users a feeling of "freedom", but, how real is the freedom? For example, as mentioned previously, what is the per capita murder rate in Australia, a country with comparable political freedom, but better control of guns, compared to the U.S.? Do Australians feel more or less free than U.S. citizens? What is the per capita transportation death rate in, for example, New York City, London, or Paris, compared to Los Angeles? Do people in Los Angeles feel more free than people in New York, London, and Paris?

I do believe that most Americans, if forced to give up one or the other, would give up their guns in preference to giving up their cars. And yet, people in the U.S. lived without cars for 120 years. How, if cars are essential to freedom?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

Nonetheless, they kill the same number of Americans every year. Dead is dead, regardless of intention. So you excuse automotive deaths as a cost of "convenience"?

Excerpted from the Fall 2003 study, [PDF warning] Economic Contribution of the Automotive Industry to the U.S. Economy – An Update ...

... we estimate total downstream and socioeconomic employment resulting from the sale and use of the automobile to be 9.1 million. We combine this total estimate of employment related to automobiles with our table 1.3 estimates of employment contributed by new vehicle employment and sales in table 3.3. The total sum employment (netted for double-counting) is 13.3 million. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates total U.S. employment in 2001 to be 135 million. Therefore, we believe new vehicle production, sales, and other jobs related to the use of automobiles are responsible for 1 out of every 10 jobs in the U.S economy.

The study was prepared for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and that source should be considered. However, it doesn't take an auto advocacy group to understand how vital motor vehicles are to the economy of the United States.

They are far more than a mere convenience.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

In light of your comparisons, the same effort is made. Accidental gun deaths are, in fact, very rare - in part thanks to considerable efforts in the industry to improve the technology such that they do not "go off" without deliberate action, and do not suffer catastrophic failure when used as designed.

You're conflating "accidental" with "deliberate". When someone picks up a gun, points it at someone, and pulls the trigger, all by choice, there is nothing accidental about it. The problem isn't the device, it's the user choosing to kill.

.

So 3 year old Julio Segura-McIntosh wanted to kill himself? There are any number of children who kill themselves or other children simply because the NRA isn't interested in common sense solutions to accidental discharge by children.

In these cases it's not the user but the NRA and its reality blind members who are choosing death over life of American children.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

Some random thoughts are floating around in my mind with that statement, so now I'm curious. Does everyone in your family know how to shoot a gun, or are you the sole protector? Also I am curious if you have young kids and how you protect the guns from them (and vice versa). I also wonder if you carry the gun into the shower with you? What about a night on the town and leaving the kids with a babysitter? How does that work?

This is a question I have been wondering for a long time about gun owners. How do they keep things safe for children in the house but still accessible and ready enough to be used to fight off an intruder? It seems like the two things would be mutually exclusive and I can't imagine how you can have both but perhaps I am missing something. Then there is the situation of someone in the shower. I don't imagine most gun owners bring them in there with them, so that to me, seems to be an area of vulnerability when you could be attacked without defense. Then there is the issue of leaving the kids at a babysitter. How do gun owners with this incessant fear and need to protect their families with a firearm address that issue? Do they make sure that the house they leave the little tykes at has firearms and people that know how to use them? If someone comes into their home to babysit do they make sure they know where the guns are and how to use them? I would assume this precludes the average 14 year old girl coming over to babysit, but I could perhaps be wrong on that as well in some circles.

Firearms are stored in a vault or full safe. Only I have the password/key. Basic safety training for all is yes. I rarely carry as I tend to avoid places that I feel I would need to carry a gun with me to be safe. There is no way in hell I would ever leave a firearm just sitting out and unlocked, regardless of the circumstances.

I use this


Keeping things safe and accessible is easy and IMO there is no excuse for gun owners to NOT secure firearms. It is part of the responsibility of owning and accidents are not acceptable. When I say 'no excuses', I mean no excuses whatsoever. End of story. A failure to do so in many circumstances is IMO plain reckless and those people have no business owning a gun. Furthermore, leaving something out makes it more prone to being stolen or used by an unauthorized user. In my opinion, gun 'accidents' should be 0. I say 'accidents' because it is really 'negligence'. They aren't accidents at all and are completely preventable.

My advice to someone who feels they need a gun in the shower is to start looking for a nicer neighborhood. Many people on this forum stereotype gun owners as one, large, paranoid group. It simply isn't true and it's no different than making a stereotype based on any other cultural trait.

[k995]

Originally Posted by Merkava_4

From Lawrence Hunter, in his words:



LINK

Thats the argument perhaps it made sense in the 1800's, it doesnt anymore.

An armed revolt with light arms against what by some would be considered "tyrany" is not something feasable today.

Just the definition of "tyrany" who gets to deciede on this. Does it have to be explicit like say current north korea, or can it be subtle like iran ? Does the tyrany of the mayority count (as some advocate) the courts?

As for the resistant parts: how? How is some liglty armed people ever going to take on something like the US army? Isnt revolting then more based on hoping this army will pick the side of the oppressed and doesnt that give the ultimate power to the military ? Isnt this actually inviting a more strongly rooted military tyrany?


TYhis text doesnt answer any of these questions, it takes a text written almost 200 years ago and tries to make it work on current day state of affairs.

Some parts of such a discussion reminds me on how some muslims/christians try to use the koran or bibble and explain/aprove on current day culture. Long past time to amend that.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

In light of your comparisons, the same effort is made. Accidental gun deaths are, in fact, very rare - in part thanks to considerable efforts in the industry to improve the technology such that they do not "go off" without deliberate action, and do not suffer catastrophic failure when used as designed.

Yet there still hasn't been a big push for biometric smart guns, which could be done quite easily with current technology, and would go much further than what you described above.

You're conflating "accidental" with "deliberate". When someone picks up a gun, points it at someone, and pulls the trigger, all by choice, there is nothing accidental about it. The problem isn't the device, it's the user choosing to kill.

Yes, but it's much easier to kill with a gun than without it.

FBI statistics. Look it up.

When you make a claim as fact on here the rules say it's up to you to provide sources.

Freedom isn't about living worry-free, it's about being able to do something legitimate without restraint or punishment. I'm not worried about some idiot around the next corner with his gun/knife/gasoline/bat/hands/car/whatever about to go on a killing spree because I can stop him. Funny, you didn't hear about several other mass killings shortly after the Newtown massacre precisely because there WERE armed citizens who stopped them before the body counts reached front-page levels. Yes, they happened.

There's no way you can make this claim without sources either.

The solution is to let upstanding citizens have the tools they need to stop violent evil - a solution which is very effective, enough so that you don't even realize how common it is and how often it works.

Many times these shooters are "upstanding citizens" without criminal records until they go on their shooting spree.

[k995]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

Nonetheless, they kill the same number of Americans every year. Dead is dead, regardless of intention. So you excuse automotive deaths as a cost of "convenience"?

As a cost for out society, without the car as we know it, our society simply isnt possible.

Society without a car anno 2013 is possible but it would require some very drastic changes.

I'm saying if you're up for banning guns due to attributed deaths, then you have to stay consistent and demand banning cars too.

I'm not giving up either, as both are vital to preserving my freedom.

BS, neither cars nor guns preserve your freedom.

Cars do serve a vital part of society, guns dont. If you take ito account the accidental gun injuries, the crimes done with lost/stolen/sold private guns and whatever else nagtive side effect I doubt there still is a possitive side to the massive private gun ownership the USA has now.

So your argument is BS cars ar far more important in 2013 then private owned guns are.

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

The US military cannot take down a 300 million armed guerilla army, they couldn't even handle Vietnam.

You're forgetting only one thing, the only thing America hates most is other Americans.

[Renzatic]

Nah. We only hate Americans who don't agree with us. But then, they're not really Americans.

Cuz they don't agree with us.

So we really don't hate other Americans at all.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by samiwas

... I have no problem with an "upstanding citizen" carrying a gun, if they meet my definition of upstanding citizen. However, I presume that my definition is quite different from yours...

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition?