Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 10-07-2018, 09:22 PM
 
Location: San Diego
50,064 posts, read 46,618,493 times
Reputation: 33905

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
He certainly knew nothing about guns.
Or gun laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2018, 09:26 PM
 
Location: Morrison, CO
34,123 posts, read 18,373,255 times
Reputation: 25696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
He certainly knew nothing about guns.
Many anti (legal) gun ownership activists are ignorant about guns. The say things like high, magazine clips, assault weapon, and fully semi automatic. Clueless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2018, 10:19 PM
 
Location: San Diego
50,064 posts, read 46,618,493 times
Reputation: 33905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Many anti (legal) gun ownership activists are ignorant about guns. The say things like high, magazine clips, assault weapon, and fully semi automatic. Clueless.
Notice how this nonsense has come down to a trickle with Obama/Hillary out and Trump in along with Conservative SC. The Constitution and our gun rights are safe for 30-40 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2018, 11:04 PM
 
Location: Florida
2,309 posts, read 892,847 times
Reputation: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting statistics.

In an average year there are 250 justifiable self defense homicides involving firearms in the US.

In an average year there are 11,000 criminal homicides by firearm.

That is a 44 to 1 ratio of guns being used to take an innocent persons freedom away versus protecting someone's freedom. Statistically you are more likely to use your gun to kill your wife and kids then defend them from a stranger intent on harming you.
That statistic only count the times where the bad guy dies. There are at the very low end 50,000 cases per year where people defended themselves and the vast majority of the time the mere presence of a firearm is enough to deter a threat.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

But you didn't answer my question. Is defending myself with a firearm denying the bad guy's rights?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 01:05 AM
 
Location: Central Washington
1,664 posts, read 865,361 times
Reputation: 2941
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
A few years ago I heard it said that Washington had the highest per-capita NRA membership of any state. Undeniably, the state has traditionally opposed common-sense gun safety. A democratic governor even signed into law legalization of silencers in 2011. I don't know who needs a silencer other than an assassin or a gangster. I know that silencers were very popular among NY mafia back in the heyday of the Gambinos etc.

But the climate here has improved. I credit an influx of well-educated Californians, and well-informed millennial tech workers. Initiative 594, to mandate universal background checks, passed 59-40% in 2014. A coalition of concerned citizens, including Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, and Nick Hanauer (Amazon investor) generously donated to get it passed.

Now we have Initiative 1639, to restrict assault-style weapons. It's a good first step. There has always been confusion about the definition of 'assault style weapon.' I-1639 defines all semi-automatic style weapons as assault weapons. From the initiative:
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_I..._Measure_(2018)


I'm not a gun expert, so this is all Greek to me, but I'm told that this definition encompasses all semi-automatic-style weapons. This greatly simplifies things. No longer to police have to wonder whether the gun with the 'barrel shroud' is legal or not. The one thing I wish they had included is regulation of the high magazine clips. I think that is key, but they left it off.

Based on recent voting trends in the state, I think this will easily pass. Finally we will be on the road to common sense gun safety, as other advanced states such as California and New York.
Yet another derelict from claude hill who thinks he knows something about guns. This initiative has NOTHING to do with silencers, nor "barrel shrouds" but turns my 10/22 and my Marlin Model 60, both chambered in .22LR, into "assault rifles." Yes, even the evil .22LR will become an "assault weapon." The "concerned citizens" the OP cites are the only real supporters of this useless initiative, and they think their money can buy Washington State law, regardless of the fact that they themselves go around with heavily armed security.

Here is the truth about I-1639.

It creates a number of changes to ownership and acquisition of such rifles, including:
  • Requiring training, to be renewed every five years, for purchasing any semiautomatic rifle
  • Requiring all semiautomatic rifle purchases to be approved by local law enforcement authority
  • Applying the same process for purchases of all semiautomatic rifles as it currently exists for handguns - but without the exception for people with concealed pistol license and with a mandatory 10 day waiting period
  • Amending that paperwork to state that owning guns is a danger to the purchaser
  • Establishing a fee, up to $25 to fund all of the above
  • Banning sales of semiautomatic rifles to out-of state residents
  • Establishing the minimum age of 21 for purchasing semiautomatic rifles
  • Banning possession of semiautomatic firearms for people under 21 outside their property boundaries
  • https://www.i1639.org/
  • The bolded is obviously an infringement, which will be voided by the US Constitution, not to mention the Washington State Constitution, section 24, which states:
Quote:
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Laws and Agency Rules Washington State Constitution



The initiative also makes a lawful gun owner liable if a person breaks into their home and steals a firearm. Here is the text of the initiative: https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elect...ltext_1531.pdf



For those who may not be familiar with the ugly state of politics in the otherwise beautiful state of Washington, we are controlled by one single county, (King County, which contains Seattle). King county alone, has over half a million more people than all 21 counties in the eastern half of the state combined.


The majority of folks in the eastern half and much of the Olympic peninsula are more common sense, "live and let live" types like our good neighbors in eastern Oregon, and Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, not to mention millions of other like minded people all over our country.



Thanks to my father and grandfather, I have been around firearms almost all of my 48 years, and despite the large number of firearms of all types I have experience with not one has ever harmed a human being, with the exception of one case of "Garand thumb" when I was younger. I also have no idea what a "high magazine clip" is, perhaps the OP can enlighten us before November 6.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 07:54 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,064 posts, read 46,618,493 times
Reputation: 33905
This part is ridiculous. Burglaries happen all the time and people don't even know it happened. Who takes inventory of all their belongings every 5 days? No one does. Plus, the most common "gun storage" are metal or wood cabinets that are no match for a burglar. They are meant to keep small kids out not random adults. The theft or invalid use of a firearm should fall all on the perp not turn the victim into a perp.
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained
as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized
access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law
enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized
access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of
the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the
firearm had been taken.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 09:36 AM
 
Location: Heart of the desert lands
3,978 posts, read 1,969,921 times
Reputation: 5219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A View Post
That statistic only count the times where the bad guy dies. There are at the very low end 50,000 cases per year where people defended themselves and the vast majority of the time the mere presence of a firearm is enough to deter a threat.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf
Besides being willfully ignorant a majority of the time, the liberals that do happen to learn something about firearms only care about the facts that supports their agenda, the rest of the stats and data be damned.

I had a 2 on 1 attempted mugging at knifepoint in the early 80's next to a store in Minneapolis. As soon as they saw my Ruger, they could not get away from me fast enough, one leaving a shoe behind.

That was all the education I required to learn about my second amendment rights, and has been so ever since. Of course that incident, and thousands every year like it, almost never get folded into any recorded data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 02:08 PM
 
Location: San Jose
2,594 posts, read 1,227,864 times
Reputation: 2590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A View Post
That statistic only count the times where the bad guy dies. There are at the very low end 50,000 cases per year where people defended themselves and the vast majority of the time the mere presence of a firearm is enough to deter a threat.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

But you didn't answer my question. Is defending myself with a firearm denying the bad guy's rights?
As already discussed on in this thread, there are no accurate statistics for the number of defensive gun uses that occur in a single year. All we have is mere speculation. In contrast the detrimental effects guns have on society can be accurately measure in a myriad of stats and data.

The problem with defensive gun uses is that it often gives the person armed a sense of false confidence. The George Zimmerman case is a classic example. Had he not been armed, he never would have confronted Trayvon Martin. Martin would still be alive and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

To answer your question "Is defending myself with a firearm denying the bad guy's rights?"

That depends on the circumstances of the encounter. I think in the Zimmerman case yeah he stole a young boys right to live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 02:18 PM
 
28,122 posts, read 12,437,598 times
Reputation: 15329
Quote:
Originally Posted by dozerbear View Post
Yet another derelict from claude hill who thinks he knows something about guns. This initiative has NOTHING to do with silencers, nor "barrel shrouds" but turns my 10/22 and my Marlin Model 60, both chambered in .22LR, into "assault rifles." Yes, even the evil .22LR will become an "assault weapon." The "concerned citizens" the OP cites are the only real supporters of this useless initiative, and they think their money can buy Washington State law, regardless of the fact that they themselves go around with heavily armed security.

Here is the truth about I-1639.

It creates a number of changes to ownership and acquisition of such rifles, including:
  • Requiring training, to be renewed every five years, for purchasing any semiautomatic rifle
  • Requiring all semiautomatic rifle purchases to be approved by local law enforcement authority
  • Applying the same process for purchases of all semiautomatic rifles as it currently exists for handguns - but without the exception for people with concealed pistol license and with a mandatory 10 day waiting period
  • Amending that paperwork to state that owning guns is a danger to the purchaser
  • Establishing a fee, up to $25 to fund all of the above
  • Banning sales of semiautomatic rifles to out-of state residents
  • Establishing the minimum age of 21 for purchasing semiautomatic rifles
  • Banning possession of semiautomatic firearms for people under 21 outside their property boundaries
  • https://www.i1639.org/
  • The bolded is obviously an infringement, which will be voided by the US Constitution, not to mention the Washington State Constitution, section 24, which states:
Laws and Agency Rules Washington State Constitution



The initiative also makes a lawful gun owner liable if a person breaks into their home and steals a firearm. Here is the text of the initiative: https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elect...ltext_1531.pdf



For those who may not be familiar with the ugly state of politics in the otherwise beautiful state of Washington, we are controlled by one single county, (King County, which contains Seattle). King county alone, has over half a million more people than all 21 counties in the eastern half of the state combined.


The majority of folks in the eastern half and much of the Olympic peninsula are more common sense, "live and let live" types like our good neighbors in eastern Oregon, and Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, not to mention millions of other like minded people all over our country.



Thanks to my father and grandfather, I have been around firearms almost all of my 48 years, and despite the large number of firearms of all types I have experience with not one has ever harmed a human being, with the exception of one case of "Garand thumb" when I was younger. I also have no idea what a "high magazine clip" is, perhaps the OP can enlighten us before November 6.
When Govt creates unconstitutional laws or regulations, its up to THE PEOPLE, to disobey, not comply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Heart of the desert lands
3,978 posts, read 1,969,921 times
Reputation: 5219
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post

The problem with defensive gun uses is that it often gives the person armed a sense of false confidence. The George Zimmerman case is a classic example. Had he not been armed, he never would have confronted Trayvon Martin. Martin would still be alive and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The bolded part stated with such conviction, yet not a shred of proof. Zimmerman was damn tired of young men/teenagers performing burglaries in his neighborhood. Martin's behaviour that night fit the pattern of somebody scouting a break in. That is the entire reason he was out on neighborhood watch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
To answer your question "Is defending myself with a firearm denying the bad guy's rights?"

That depends on the circumstances of the encounter. I think in the Zimmerman case yeah he stole a young boys right to live.
Bolded is your opinion only. If Martin had known Zimmerman was armed, he very likely would not have ambushed Zimmerman, and started a physical confrontation. At least a smart person would not have.

Martin was in the act of beating Zimmerman's head into a sidewalk repeatedly when Zimmerman shot him. Once.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top