GUNS - Page 15
+ Reply to Thread
Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 204
Like Tree88Likes

Thread: GUNS

  1. #141
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    To me, if it was infringed, then it would mean that they took away the rights to guns. As in you cannot own them at all.

    Limits and modifications would not infringe on your right to bear arms.
    Mom to Elizabeth (6) and Corinne (4)

  2. #142
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Missy if you are going to green light Bonita bringing abortion into most or every debate could you at least require an *abortion mentioned* in the subject field when it isn't an abortion debate so that those of us who don't want to debate abortion again can know to avoid it?

  3. #143
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    To me, if it was infringed, then it would mean that they took away the rights to guns. As in you cannot own them at all.

    Limits and modifications would not infringe on your right to bear arms.
    right and this is what I don't get- there are already tons of restrictions on what weapons you can and cannot own- tons!
    Jessica80 likes this.

  4. #144
    Online Community Director MissyJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Rocky Mountain Wanna-be
    Posts
    13,069

    Default

    Kim, I know that there was a huge controversy over the *manner* of searches of a person after the whole body image scanners and more invasive "pat downs." I now avoid air travel which is a shame as I honestly enjoyed it in the past. (Hopefully they are moving to rectify.)

    Still, you made me think of how the definition of what constitutes a "search" has changed over time. Within the definition from the case of U.S. vs. Jacobsen (thank you wiki! LOL) "A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed." Obviously in your example of carry-ons (or now purses / backpacks when entering a concert or athletic event) -- "society" now deems that it is reasonable to expect it to be searched. Years ago, that wasn't the case.

    Good food for thought.

    I do believe though that again "society" sees that there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy at the threshold of one's home. I do not see that view changing anytime soon to allow police or other government officials into one's home to "inspect" gun safes, to search for unregistered weapons, etc.

    Curious -- for those supporting background checks for all weapon transfers, would those be applied to a father passing down to a son?

    Are you also for requiring a national gun registry for ALL weapons to be registered and accounted for? I apologize as those may have already been addressed within the debate. If so, just direct me back to that post.

    I think my biggest frustration of the topic comes with those that wish to disarm self-defense weapons from the general populace while at the same time have armed bodyguards for themselves and their families as it seems disingenuous. While I respect that some are celebrities or high profile -- after working with many women/children victims of domestic violence, I know for some they viewed their ability to own a gun, take gun safety / self defense classes as a lifeline. Sadly for some of those, it turned out to be just that.

  5. #145
    Online Community Director MissyJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Rocky Mountain Wanna-be
    Posts
    13,069

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    Missy if you are going to green light Bonita bringing abortion into most or every debate could you at least require an *abortion mentioned* in the subject field when it isn't an abortion debate so that those of us who don't want to debate abortion again can know to avoid it?
    I know we have that request within the debate subject threads. Are you asking however that we require everyone to title EACH post that mentions abortion, gay marriage, religion, breastfeeding, formula, attachment parenting, or any other "sensitive topic"? Currently you do not have that ability within the "quick reply" option. FTR, I am not intending this to be flippant -- as I am sincerely asking what you (all of you) want?

    My personal opinion (and hope) would be that those that do not wish to respond to an aspect of any debate that they find controversial that they simply choose to ignore and move on.
    SID081108 likes this.

  6. #146
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Nevermind, Missy.
    bunnyfufu and blather like this.

  7. #147
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    See this is frustrating to me. You Insist on believing there is actual evidence that validates your claim when nothing you have provided does so. Thats a fact. To claim that more guns creates a safer nation based on the graphs and stats you have provided is simply not statistically or scientifically true. Saying "I don't believe you" to me doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.
    Here is another example.

    The D.C. gun ban, enacted in 1976, prohibited anyone other than law-enforcement officers from carrying a firearm in the city. Residents were even barred from keeping guns in their homes for self-defense.

    Some in Washington who owned firearms before the ban were allowed to keep them as long as the weapons were disassembled or trigger-locked at all times. According to the law, trigger locks could not be removed for self-defense even if the owner was being robbed at gunpoint. The only way anyone could legally possess a firearm in the District without a trigger lock was to obtain written permission from the D.C. police. The granting of such permission was rare.

    The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.
    In 2007, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the city's gun ban was unconstitutional. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote in the majority opinion that "the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns."
    Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976. The decline resulted from a variety of factors, but losing the gun ban certainly did not produce the rise in murders that many might have expected.

    Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: A Gun Ban That Misfired - WSJ.com
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  8. #148
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Here is another example.
    You don't understand what i'm saying. I can't find a better way to explain it at the moment. I can't keep trying right now. This is not an issue about guns. This is an issue about understanding research.

    ETA: But i do have to say, the fact that you are using a mis-executed gun ban to try to prove that arming everyone is better, just re-enforces my feelings that you are not taking in this information and processing it correctly.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 05-08-2013 at 04:23 PM.

  9. #149
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    You don't understand what i'm saying. I can't find a better way to explain it at the moment. I can't keep trying right now. This is not an issue about guns. This is an issue about understanding research.
    I understand what you are saying. You can't prove cause and effect. But then you try to use the same thing to prove the opposite is true. It works both ways. Just as I can't say for sure that the increase in gun purchases caused gun violence to decrease, you also can't say that decrease in the number of households owning guns caused gun violence to decrease either. There is no way to prove either case.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  10. #150
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    I understand what you are saying. You can't prove cause and effect. But then you try to use the same thing to prove the opposite is true. It works both ways. Just as I can't say for sure that the increase in gun purchases caused gun violence to decrease, you also can't say that decrease in the number of households owning guns caused gun violence to decrease either. There is no way to prove either case.
    well all research is not equal. My point is you are twisting statistics, or if not intentionally doing so, you are assuming things about what they mean that are way off. Then when i pointed it out you say "Well i don't believe you". There would be ways to get a more accurate picture of how gun ownership affects crime rates than what you have been doing on this thread. Just to look at the articles presented, what they are saying is not even what you are trying to prove. I think with most of them...the actual writer of the article would hear what you are suggesting and say "wooah, you can't deduce that from the information given here"

    or to be more accurate the writer might say

    "Well okay yeah, i presented it like that to make people think thats what I'm saying...but admittedly to deduce that would be inaccurate"

    Your point here is that not every study can account for all control values. I would agree with that too, but that is a separate issue from what I'm saying. And some research accounts for controls a lot better than others.

    ETA: When I asked my original question about if you were going on opinion or if you had an article or paper that proved the causation it would have been much easier to say "I don't have anything close to definitive proof, but it just makes sense to me because....."

    I wouldn't dismiss that as much as trying to pass statistics as meaningful that aren't, because then we could talk about your 'because' which i'm assuming has to do with this idea that criminals are afraid to commit crimes if they think everyone has a gun?
    Last edited by KimPossible; 05-08-2013 at 04:38 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions