U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-15-2012, 03:12 AM
 
10,339 posts, read 7,583,862 times
Reputation: 4513

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
no it doesnt, just because some liberal media or some federal goverment thugs think that having firearms in your home makes it worse for you does not mean it will happen.


"Based on a review of data... the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder."

Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence

"Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home [. . .]. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home [. . .].

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."

Does Owning a Gun Increase or Decrease Safety? Science Answers | Skeptikai
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-15-2012, 03:13 AM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,833 posts, read 5,581,593 times
Reputation: 3399
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
Why would the mother have had 3 firearms in the house, including a semi-automatic rifle? That alone is a ridiculous amount of firearms to have in an upper middle class safe neighborhood.

I live in an upper middle class safe neighborhood and I probably have 20 firearms in my house.. I have had firearms in my house all my life.. My children were raised with firearms.. No violence... ever..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 03:15 AM
 
10,339 posts, read 7,583,862 times
Reputation: 4513
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
I live in an upper middle class safe neighborhood and I probably have 20 firearms in my house.. I have had firearms in my house all my life.. My children were raised with firearms.. No violence... ever..
You're fortunate---see my posting above. Why do you feel the need to have 20 firearms? or do you collect them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 03:15 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,093 posts, read 4,304,733 times
Reputation: 2631
So the question is whether or not the founding fathers believed that individuals should be armed, even if they had no connection with the military?

That answer is simple. It is a resounding YES. I mean, why are there even 23 pages of debate?


The simple reality is that, had only the government militia been allowed to arm themselves in 1776, there would have been no American Independence. You can't exactly fight a war without guns. Had the British had the right to pass a law to take away American guns, they would have.


Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, had no faith in government at all. He believed all governments would eventually become despotic(so did Benjamin Franklin for that matter). And the only way to end despotic government, would be for the people to rise up against it. And thus, he believed that the right to bear arms, was necessary to make sure the people had the power to rise up against a tyrannical government.

I mean, look at these freedom fighters in Libya, Syria, and every other country. These are government militias. Where would they be without guns? And who do you think is supplying them these guns? Most likely the good old U.S. of A.


You might be able to make an argument that the founders wouldn't have wanted completely unregulated gun ownership. And I would agree. I'm sure they wouldn't have wanted criminals and the mentally ill owning guns. But, I don't see the founders passing any more laws against guns than are already on the books. And whatever questions there were about guns in particular, they would have left up to the states.


Of course, you have to understand that when the constitution was created, the second amendment only applied to the federal government. Technically the bill of rights didn't even apply to the states until the 14th amendment. So before 1868, the states could take away your freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, right to privacy, right to bear arms, right to a trial, etc. Because the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments.

And if you repealed the 14th amendment(it was actually unconstitutionally proposed and ratified). Then Chicago and New York city can makes gun illegal in their cities again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 03:22 AM
 
10,339 posts, read 7,583,862 times
Reputation: 4513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
So the question is whether or not the founding fathers believed that individuals should be armed, even if they had no connection with the military?

That answer is simple. It is a resounding YES. I mean, why are there even 23 pages of debate?


The simple reality is that, had only the government militia been allowed to arm themselves in 1776, there would have been no American Independence. You can't exactly fight a war without guns. Had the British had the right to pass a law to take away American guns, they would have.


Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, had no faith in government at all. He believed all governments would eventually become despotic(so did Benjamin Franklin for that matter). And the only way to end despotic government, would be for the people to rise up against it. And thus, he believed that the right to bear arms, was necessary to make sure the people had the power to rise up against a tyrannical government.

I mean, look at these freedom fighters in Libya, Syria, and every other country. These are government militias. Where would they be without guns? And who do you think is supplying them these guns? Most likely the good old U.S. of A.


You might be able to make an argument that the founders wouldn't have wanted completely unregulated gun ownership. And I would agree. I'm sure they wouldn't have wanted criminals and the mentally ill owning guns. But, I don't see the founders passing any more laws against guns than are already on the books. And whatever questions there were about guns in particular, they would have left up to the states.


Of course, you have to understand that when the constitution was created, the second amendment only applied to the federal government. Technically the bill of rights didn't even apply to the states until the 14th amendment. So before 1868, the states could take away your freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, right to privacy, right to bear arms, right to a trial, etc. Because the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments.

And if you repealed the 14th amendment(it was actually unconstitutionally proposed and ratified). Then Chicago and New York city can makes gun illegal in their cities again.
yes but that was then. This is now. Why is there any need for a single household to have several guns in it (aside from those used for hunting)? It's not too likely you're going to be fighting the government in armed combat any time soon. Why is there any need for a household to have semi-automatic weapons?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 03:29 AM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,833 posts, read 5,581,593 times
Reputation: 3399
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
You're fortunate---see my posting above. Why do you feel the need to have 20 firearms? or do you collect them?
I am fortunate because I educated my children in the proper use of firearms... I enjoy shooting... I hunt, I go to the range, and I carry for personal protection and have all of my adult life. Let me ask you? How many screwdrivers do you have in your house? Probably 8 or 9 I would guess. Why? Well, because they all have different uses.. The same thing applies to firearms.. They all have a different purpose.. The assault rifle that was mentioned, first of all, was not used in the shooting. Secondly is seldomly used in a crime. and third they are a lot of fun to shoot at the range.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 03:35 AM
 
33,108 posts, read 38,992,889 times
Reputation: 28434
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
yes but that was then. This is now. Why is there any need for a single household to have several guns in it (aside from those used for hunting)? It's not too likely you're going to be fighting the government in armed combat any time soon. Why is there any need for a household to have semi-automatic weapons?
I agree but in a country where hundreds of millions of guns are out there for almost anyone to buy,
in a country where the right to own guns is entrenched in its constitution, i'm feeling these all too frequent mass murders are the inevitable consequence of having a situation whereby every one has guns.
As guns will never be banned expect the carnage to continue and tomorrow,next week or next month another person will go off his rocker and gun down who knows how many..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 03:56 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,093 posts, read 4,304,733 times
Reputation: 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
"Based on a review of data... the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder."

Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence

"Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home [. . .]. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home [. . .].

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."

Does Owning a Gun Increase or Decrease Safety? Science Answers | Skeptikai
Look, its a silly argument. I understand the point of it. And that is that, people use guns to keep them safe, but guns are more likely to do harm than prevent it.


If we look at these inverse relationships... I bet it is true that people who own ski masks are more likely to freeze to death. And the reason is because people who own ski masks are probably more likely to spend time outside in the cold.

I would also bet that on average, a person who owns a lifejacket is more likely to drown. A person with a bodyguard is more likely to be murdered. People who have a life insurance policy are more likely to die.


I'm sure if you looked into it, all of these things are true. But what does it mean?

Look, there are really two types of people who own guns. Your collector/sportsman types, who just enjoy having the guns. And there are the people who want them for protection. Generally because they feel like they have a legitimate fear.

For instance, I go to tax auctions, and these are cash auctions. You have the bring the cash with you, and its a lot of cash. People bring tens of thousands of dollars with them in basically bags and briefcases. And while you are in the building, there are sheriffs and deputies and other policeman types around. But once you leave, you are basically a big fat target, because you are on your own with a bag full of cash.

I'll tell you though, a lot of those people who bring that kind of cash, aren't going to risk it. And many of them have a gun. If you try to rob them, you're going to have to kill them. I've only ever brought about $20,000 to one of the auctions, but I was pretty damn nervous.

I thought, if any of the junkies in my city knew I was carrying that kind of money in my backpack, I would be robbed in a heartbeat.



The point is, I think people don't want to take the risk of being defenseless. I mean, its one thing to shoot yourself accidentally. Its another thing entirely to have your house invaded, you get beat up, they rape and kill your kids and wife, and they leave you tied up in the basement to set your house on fire, and you burn to death.

It's one thing to accidentally shoot someone you love. And another thing to be defenseless when a crazy person with a gun comes in and starts killing everyone.



I heard some ridiculous defense for gun control in the Aurora movie theater shooting case. They said "I know people believe that if the audience was armed, that they would have instantly killed the shooter before he could have killed many people. But the shooter had body armor, and people with guns only would have made matter worse."

I think that is a pretty ridiculous argument to make. First, you can hit the guy in the face, but regardless, if people started shooting at him, he most likely would have run away. Armor or no armor, he wasn't going to stand there getting nailed in the chest by 45 caliber bullets. I don't know how any sane person really believes that that shooting would have been worse if people had been armed.


I'll tell you what, I don't want to be defenseless. I don't mind dying, there are plenty of things far worse than dying.

How about you have someone yank out your fingernails with pliers, after they broke into your house looking for money, and they think you are hiding it. I have a friend who has been robbed multiple times.



John Stossel - Gun Laws That Kill - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 04:07 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,093 posts, read 4,304,733 times
Reputation: 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
yes but that was then. This is now. Why is there any need for a single household to have several guns in it (aside from those used for hunting)? It's not too likely you're going to be fighting the government in armed combat any time soon. Why is there any need for a household to have semi-automatic weapons?

Do you know what a normalcy-bias is?

Look, I'm not arguing that anyone is going to be fighting an armed conflict with the government anytime soon. But it could certainly happen in the future. Without guns, you are a sheep. You have to just lie down and take it.

Most people in this country believe that this nation is a democracy, which effectively means that the majority can do whatever they want. I can guarantee you that this country is not a democracy. And if you want to test the laws of the majority, vs the arms of the minority. You might not like the outcome.


My neighbor hates the government. He always says these politicians are doing all of these things that are unconstitutional. He says that some of his elected officials deserve "40 grains in the head"... And that, thats how things used to work. If you were doing things you shouldn't be doing, you worried constantly about a pissed off constituent taking you out.


The more I see the constitution being ignored by people, and even the fact that we are having this discussion about what the second amendment is supposed to mean. Reminds me how much I despise democracy. And so did the founders. Go ask James Madison, the father of our constitution, what he thought about democracy. Or a Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, even the statist Alexander Hamilton hated democracy.


Republic vs Democracy - YouTube


You should get you a gun, because of these abusive cops. I get tired of cops wanting me to feel sorry for them when someone kills a cop. People hate cops because a lot of cops are total *******s. I could provide thousands of incidences where cops have totally abused their power, and absolutely nothing happened to them.

The problem with the police is, you have to ask yourself, what kind of person becomes a cop?

A normal person doesn't become a cop, because normal people don't want to do that kind of work. The people who become cops, are people who desire power and control of other people. They are the crazies who enjoy bossing others around. They aren't sane and normal people. They are the "respect my authority" types, who need to feel powerful and get off on it. Looking for a reason to taser your grandma. Then their abusive cop buddies help them cover it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 05:27 AM
 
9,091 posts, read 4,515,000 times
Reputation: 3724
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
I am fortunate because I educated my children in the proper use of firearms... I enjoy shooting... I hunt, I go to the range, and I carry for personal protection and have all of my adult life. Let me ask you? How many screwdrivers do you have in your house? Probably 8 or 9 I would guess. Why? Well, because they all have different uses.. The same thing applies to firearms.. They all have a different purpose.. The assault rifle that was mentioned, first of all, was not used in the shooting. Secondly is seldomly used in a crime. and third they are a lot of fun to shoot at the range.
You're also fortunate that none of your children have an illness that can suddenly or over time without your even knowing it turn them into a dangerous raving lunatic. These crazies who commit mass murder, like your children, are 'educated' in proper use of firearms.

I'm a handgun owner. Though we can't base laws on the most extreme misuse of weapons, I don't pretend that knowing how to properly use one is an answer to the problem. If I cracked up, my gun would be a lot more dangerous to others than my screwdrivers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:25 AM.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top