1. Must be at least 25 y.o. to buy semi-automatic weapon greater than .22 LR caliber.
2. Strengthen general background check laws.
3. Require current psych background check to purchase semi-automatic weapon greater than .22 LR caliber.
4. Make sellers liable for any abuse of any weapons sold within 3 - 5 years of sale.
5. Make sellers liable for any abuse of any ammo sold within 3 - 5 years of sale. (May require some new form/way to put ID# on ammo)
6. Make parents/relatives/guardians/roommates, others closely associated w/ shooter, liable for gun violence, unless they file a timely report.
7. Ban the sale of mega-capacity magazines.
8. Keep better track/records of overall gun ownership, so that when a formerly legit gun owner goes off the rails, they're red flagged.
9. Create an agency that takes custody of red flaggee's weapons, until their flagging conditions are withdrawn.
10. Strengthen mandatory sentencing guidelines for crimes involving guns.
11. Heck, make all crimes involving guns, Federal crimes, to take the States out of the sentencing loop.
(One can hope, but that'll never pass.)

Realistically, we gotta get rid of the crazies. Guns don't kill people all by themselves; they only do so in the hands of crazies. We can tighten up the country with some common sense gun control legislation, but the cat's already outa the bag. We can likely cut down on young people shooting younger people at schools, but we're never gonna get rid of all mass casualty events. If we get lucky, maybe we get it so that crazies and bad guys that get guns, only shoot other crazies and bad guys with guns.

Put some serious liability on the source of the weapons, and it'll be a lot less likely that guns end up in the hands' of crazies. Sell a gun to crazy? Go to jail, and/or pay a hefty fine. This has all gotta be done while keeping the NRA crowd happy without diminishing safe and sane gun owner's rights. We're just putting some extra pressure on the sourcing side to make sure only the safe and sane are allowed to participate. It's gonna take some marketing, but the 2nd Amendment need not get scathed (too much) while weeding out the crazies.

The biggest hurdle, of course, is getting the gunnies to buy into curtailing the crazies, without throwing a hissy-fit that their 2nd Amendment rights are getting compromised.... Ideally, it's only the crazies' rights that are being adjudicated, but the sales job is; crazies' ought not have the same rights as the safe and sane among us, but some of the (supposedly) S&S among the NRA crowd must doubt their own S&S-ness, and fear their own inner crazy.
==

Some are pretty reasonable, others draconian.

The biggest thing that gets 99+% the attention is the one-off whack jobs.

The problem is that with the number of households with a firearm here in the us, and the number of mass shootings in a year, you are talking about 1 in a million plus household that are involved each year. You add in red-flag type scenarios with an ex, you are still in the maybe one in 50.000 a year.

Let those numbers sink in. firearmed-robbers and armed drug dealers are somewhat of a different situation, as they aren't usually part of the national discussion.

I am 100% behind #10 and #11

I fully believe that we need to make this a 100% our society will not tolerate illegal use of firearms #10 and #11.

But the one-off whacko doesn't care. Those are the ones who will always find a way. Fire-bombing, flamethrower, explosives, the list will go on.

This is where I get the "Fix the People" stance.

Criminals will be curtailed greatly with #10 and #11, without a doubt. But it will take a generation to make a solid impact.

$10 grand a kid invested in children before the 3rd grade will plainly offset the 100K a year to incarcerate someone. That keeps on going until they die or are released. The 10K is once per kid.


And for the record, it is only a tiny fraction of percentage overall, of people who break the law with a legally acquired firearm.

There has not been a single case, EVER, of a legally registered, fully automatic firearm used to commit a crime. The owners go under such scrutiny, and they are so expensive to acquire, it just doesn't happen. EVER. I'm talking of a registered NFA transferable privately owned firearm. That's why a private individual owns a fully functional restored WW II tail gunner bubble, complete with swivel chair and dual 50 cal fully automatic Ma Deuce M2a1 aero. There are a number of 3 and 5 barreled mini-guns as well. Way too valuable to risk it.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2022 09:01PM by Racer X.

Trying to minimize the damage caused by guns with self-serving hand picked statistics is disgusting. Just say what you mean. Your allegiance to gun ownership is greater than your alliance to society as a whole.

I've had this ongoing conversation with a good friend for the past half century, despite the flow of events he's not going to change his position, I've come to accept that. He's still my friend but we'll never agree about his attachment to guns.

Don't forget.. the Brady Bill, named after Ronald Reagan's press secretary who was paralyzed in an assassination attempt on the Gipper... set a rule that there was a 5 day 'waiting period' to buy a handgun. The 'cool off' period was replaced by the national background check system. Which... well, is freaking useless. Oh, and it does not apply to buying rifles or shotguns.

Good ideas murdered by the NRA and Qpublicans.

I consider myself a responsible gun owner. I don't WANT anyone who is not in their right mind to have access to a gun. And (cough) I consider children and teenagers to be defacto not in their right minds..

Ed: Oh, and a .22 is a powerful round and will kill at up to 1 mile range. It's not the caliber, its the energy. 1/2mV^2 . (well also tumble, fragmentation, etc.... )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2022 09:40PM by cbelt3.

Quote
RgrF
Trying to minimize the damage caused by guns with self-serving hand picked statistics is disgusting. Just say what you mean. Your allegiance to gun ownership is greater than your alliance to society as a whole.

I've had this ongoing conversation with a good friend for the past half century, despite the flow of events he's not going to change his position, I've come to accept that. He's still my friend but we'll never agree about his attachment to guns.

My allegiance is to personal choice coupled with personal responsibility.

Speed limit is what, 80 tops? Why do we have vehicles here in the US that can go over that? By definition, anything over that is speeding. Some might misuse them. No one gets one now, legally used or not, best for society. But, jobs and taxes.

Alcohol kills brain cells, damages your liver, takes a toll on your body as a whole, and then there is the indirect toll on others through alcoholism and drunk driving. Can't have that. Society would be better off without it. But jobs, and taxes....

Regulated legal prescribed drugs. Some abuse them, and get addicted. Can't have that. I need 6 surgeries, but no pain meds for me, but prescription NSAIDS and a sucks to be you attitude.

I can go on. The impossible problem is when do your rights override my rights?

you seem to think it is a simple problem. It is not.

My right to life, to protect myself, which I have done legally twice, is just as valid as someone elses right to not live in fear of something that might not ever happen.

Is my Right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness less than yours? You seem to think it is.

You seem to equate any gun owner as evil, because of a tiny percentage of people you associate with us.

Do you view religious leaders as all pedophiles because of small percentage?

Are all Scout leaders groomers, because of the actions of a few?

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

So, lets base all our decisions on what is right for the majority, the "community"

My next door neighbor has 12 kids. Is it in the best interests to the community for him to have 12 kids that we are housing through Section 8 housing? All get free lunch at school, I can't even fathom how much his EBT/Food Stamps payouts are for the month. His last kid was a 2 month preemie, because his wife's poor body is used up. So we all get to pay for 2 months, yes, 2 months in the NICU because the entire family is on Medicaide/Apple Health. How big is THAT bill?

They have better cars than we do, and massive TVs I could never afford. Their living costs are mostly paid for be the community. Even their sewer/water/garbage is half off because with 12 kids, they are poor as dirt, based on the tables.

Is that what is best for the community, or should we have limits on numbers of children, based on your income and the ability to raise them without them being a burden on the community?

I suppose you have a hierarchy of Rights, and which negate which others?

A hierarchy to determine whose Right to Life is more important?

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

My broken record here:

Ban semi-automatic weapons of any kind with very stiff penalties if caught with one. Allow revolvers, bolt action rifles and shotguns. Those will be sufficient for 99.99% of all needs for protection, 100% needs for hunting and target shooting for entertainment.

---

e pluribus unum

Quote
Buzz
1. Must be at least 25 y.o. to buy semi-automatic weapon greater than .22 LR caliber.
2. Strengthen general background check laws.
3. Require current psych background check to purchase semi-automatic weapon greater than .22 LR caliber.
4. Make sellers liable for any abuse of any weapons sold within 3 - 5 years of sale.
5. Make sellers liable for any abuse of any ammo sold within 3 - 5 years of sale. (May require some new form/way to put ID# on ammo)
6. Make parents/relatives/guardians/roommates, others closely associated w/ shooter, liable for gun violence, unless they file a timely report.
7. Ban the sale of mega-capacity magazines.
8. Keep better track/records of overall gun ownership, so that when a formerly legit gun owner goes off the rails, they're red flagged.
9. Create an agency that takes custody of red flaggee's weapons, until their flagging conditions are withdrawn.
10. Strengthen mandatory sentencing guidelines for crimes involving guns.
11. Heck, make all crimes involving guns, Federal crimes, to take the States out of the sentencing loop.

<bitter_sarcasm>
"Too restrictive. I offer an alternative:
1. Limit gun buying only to those who want to buy a gun.
Much simpler and more reasonable."
</bitter_sarcasm>

"But the one-off whacko doesn't care. Those are the ones who will always find a way. Fire-bombing, flamethrower, explosives, the list will go on. "

Yeah, no. Tired of this red herring. In stable nations with strict gun control, which, frankly, is EVERY other stable nation, the lack of access to guns has NOT resulted in an equivalent rise in fire-bombings, flamethrower attacks and explosions.

Quote
Racer X

Speed limit is what, 80 tops? Why do we have vehicles here in the US that can go over that? By definition, anything over that is speeding. Some might misuse them. No one gets one now, legally used or not, best for society. But, jobs and taxes.

Alcohol kills brain cells, damages your liver, takes a toll on your body as a whole, and then there is the indirect toll on others through alcoholism and drunk driving. Can't have that. Society would be better off without it. But jobs, and taxes....

Regulated legal prescribed drugs. Some abuse them, and get addicted. Can't have that. I need 6 surgeries, but no pain meds for me, but prescription NSAIDS and a sucks to be you attitude.

Yeah, but only guns are manufactured to KILL things.

That's why I take my car to the supermarket and not my gun.

Cars, alcohol and prescription drugs are all FAR more regulated than firearms.

So let's get as serious about firearm safety as we are about motor vehicles and controlled substances.

Wouldn't that be dandy?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2022 11:12AM by Lemon Drop.

cars are more regulated than firearms? Are you serious? Anyone can buy are car/truck. No regulation at all. No background check, no check to see if you have a drivers license, nothing. Convicted multiple violent felon? No problem. Just say "Here's your cash, and thanks for the keys".

Now you have a car/truck. Licensing your vehicle is for taxes, not safety. They don't check anything when you hand the DOL your title to transfer it. Violent multiple felon? No problem, they don't even ask, 3 prior DUIs? No problem. Proof of insurance? They don't even ask, at least in Washington. How, and in what way, is that more regulated than the 2 background checks, and the 10 day waiting period, that we have in Washington for a Ruger 10/22 squirrel rifle?

And how is alcohol more regulated? Hi, I'd like to buy some alcohol. Here's my ID that says I'm over 21, and here's your money, Oh, and thanks for the alcohol. Where in the US is it any different?

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2022 12:18PM by Racer X.

Quote
Ted King
My broken record here:

Ban semi-automatic weapons of any kind with very stiff penalties if caught with one. Allow revolvers, bolt action rifles and shotguns. Those will be sufficient for 99.99% of all needs for protection, 100% needs for hunting and target shooting for entertainment.

Let's cut to the chase. It's time to repeal the second amendment.

The science says to reduce gun violence you have to reduce the number of guns.

You have to take a stand. Do you support Gun Makers profits or Freedom from Gun Violence.

12 children will die every day from gun violence in the U.S.

No dead child is worth letting the Russian funded IRA and their bloody handed supporters lie about the "good guy" with a gun.

Stand up and be counted.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

Quote
Spock

Quote
Ted King
My broken record here:

Ban semi-automatic weapons of any kind with very stiff penalties if caught with one. Allow revolvers, bolt action rifles and shotguns. Those will be sufficient for 99.99% of all needs for protection, 100% needs for hunting and target shooting for entertainment.

Let's cut to the chase. It's time to repeal the second amendment.

The science says to reduce gun violence you have to reduce the number of guns.

You have to take a stand. Do you support Gun Makers profits or Freedom from Gun Violence.

12 children will die every day from gun violence in the U.S.

No dead child is worth letting the Russian funded IRA and their bloody handed supporters lie about the "good guy" with a gun.

Stand up and be counted.

All avenues of addressing the gun violence problem at the root are very hard/unlikely. I agree that getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is the rootist of the root problems but is also the hardest thing to actually get done and most unlikely to happen. Getting a Supreme Court to overturn Heller - that people have an individual right to own a gun - is probably next closest to the root and though less hard or unlikely to happen than getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, it's still very hard and unlikely to happen (at least for a LONG time). Outlawing semi-automatics is gets less to the root but can at least be done consistent with the 2nd Amendment and take less activism by the Supreme Court to rule that way. Even that admittedly is very much a long shot. But since it is less of a long shot and actually gives gun lovers a compromise - and I think compromises are important in a democracy - I tend to put it forward more than the other long shots.

---

e pluribus unum

Quote
Racer X
cars are more regulated than firearms? Are you serious? Anyone can buy are car/truck. No regulation at all. No background check, no check to see if you have a drivers license, nothing. Convicted multiple violent felon? No problem. Just say "Here's your cash, and thanks for the keys".

Now you have a car/truck. Licensing your vehicle is for taxes, not safety. They don't check anything when you hand the DOL your title to transfer it. Violent multiple felon? No problem, they don't even ask, 3 prior DUIs? No problem. Proof of insurance? They don't even ask, at least in Washington. How, and in what way, is that more regulated than the 2 background checks, and the 10 day waiting period, that we have in Washington for a Ruger 10/22 squirrel rifle?

And how is alcohol more regulated? Hi, I'd like to buy some alcohol. Here's my ID that says I'm over 21, and here's your money, Oh, and thanks for the alcohol. Where in the US is it any different?

Show me anything like this for civilian gun manufacturing:
[www.nhtsa.gov]

No point buying a car if you have no license. That license shows you have training and safety knowledge and have not gotten into trouble with your car. And a car is not designed to be a killing machine. it is designed to keep people safe.

Did the Buffalo or Uvalde shooters have a license to operate those high powered military style assault weapons? Those are designed to kill as many people as possible, in as little time as possible. No license needed though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2022 12:38PM by Lemon Drop.

Conservatives managed to capture SCOTUS to give us a defacto ban on most if not all abortion, a ban less than 20% of the nation supports. If it can be done for Roe V Wade, it can be done for Heller.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2022 12:44PM by Acer.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Racer X
cars are more regulated than firearms? Are you serious? Anyone can buy are car/truck. No regulation at all. No background check, no check to see if you have a drivers license, nothing. Convicted multiple violent felon? No problem. Just say "Here's your cash, and thanks for the keys".

Now you have a car/truck. Licensing your vehicle is for taxes, not safety. They don't check anything when you hand the DOL your title to transfer it. Violent multiple felon? No problem, they don't even ask, 3 prior DUIs? No problem. Proof of insurance? They don't even ask, at least in Washington. How, and in what way, is that more regulated than the 2 background checks, and the 10 day waiting period, that we have in Washington for a Ruger 10/22 squirrel rifle?

And how is alcohol more regulated? Hi, I'd like to buy some alcohol. Here's my ID that says I'm over 21, and here's your money, Oh, and thanks for the alcohol. Where in the US is it any different?

Show me anything like this for civilian gun manufacturing:
[www.nhtsa.gov]

No point buying a car if you have no license. That license shows you have training and safety knowledge and have not gotten into trouble with your car. And a car is not designed to be a killing machine. it is designed to keep people safe.

Did the Buffalo or Uvalde shooters have a license to operate those high powered military style assault weapons? Those are designed to kill as many people as possible, in as little time as possible. No license needed though.

Convicted multiple violent felons can have a driver's license. They can't have a firearm. Still want to know how for the end user, that a car is more regulated than a firearm.

Same for alcohol. I think I just illustrated that it isn't.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Racer X
cars are more regulated than firearms? Are you serious? Anyone can buy are car/truck. No regulation at all. No background check, no check to see if you have a drivers license, nothing. Convicted multiple violent felon? No problem. Just say "Here's your cash, and thanks for the keys".

Now you have a car/truck. Licensing your vehicle is for taxes, not safety. They don't check anything when you hand the DOL your title to transfer it. Violent multiple felon? No problem, they don't even ask, 3 prior DUIs? No problem. Proof of insurance? They don't even ask, at least in Washington. How, and in what way, is that more regulated than the 2 background checks, and the 10 day waiting period, that we have in Washington for a Ruger 10/22 squirrel rifle?

And how is alcohol more regulated? Hi, I'd like to buy some alcohol. Here's my ID that says I'm over 21, and here's your money, Oh, and thanks for the alcohol. Where in the US is it any different?

Show me anything like this for civilian gun manufacturing:
[www.nhtsa.gov]

No point buying a car if you have no license. That license shows you have training and safety knowledge and have not gotten into trouble with your car. And a car is not designed to be a killing machine. it is designed to keep people safe.

Did the Buffalo or Uvalde shooters have a license to operate those high powered military style assault weapons? Those are designed to kill as many people as possible, in as little time as possible. No license needed though.

Convicted multiple violent felons can have a driver's license. They can't have a firearm. Still want to know how for the end user, that a car is more regulated than a firearm.

Same for alcohol. I think I just illustrated that it isn't.

"More regulated " refers to the actual number of laws concerning the manufacture, sale and use of the product.

Oh, and that person with multiple felony convictions cam drive his car to a gun show and buy whatever he wants from a private seller, no questions asked.

Alcohol. Production, sale, consumption...all regulated. Ypu can conceal carry guns in more public places than you could openly drink alcohol. And you have to be 21, so we are already far ahead of the assault rifle situation.

The defense rests.

Have a good and safe Memorial Day weekend Racer X.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2022 01:39PM by Lemon Drop.

Quote
Ted King


All avenues of addressing the gun violence problem at the root are very hard/unlikely. I agree that getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is the rootist of the root problems but is also the hardest thing to actually get done and most unlikely to happen.

Ted, by being reasonable you are taking a knife to a gun fight. The gun makers and their bloody handed supporters will play dirty to keep their profits and toys. You have to be just as ruthless, just as persistent and just as determined and be prepared to play the long game. This is no quick fix and is likely to be generational. Keep the pressure on and never let up. In time common sense must prevail.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2022 01:14PM by Spock.

Guns do kill people all by themselves. I'm really sick of seeing the argument that it is the person who does the killing. If the person didn't have that high power semiautomatic rifle and large clips, he would still be a weirdo, but hundreds of people would still be alive.

Quote
Acer
Conservatives managed to capture SCOTUS to give us a defacto ban on most if not all abortion, a ban less than 20% of the nation supports. If it can be done for Roe V Wade, it can be done for Heller.

Anti-abortion advocates have been consistently more intense in pushing for anti-abortion judges than anti-Heller advocates and even then it took them decades to get it done (with massively hypocritical BS from McConnell). That's why I said overturning Heller could be done but if it can realistically be done it will take that same consistent intensity for a LONG time (as I mentioned in my post). Banning semi-automatic weapons would not take an overturning of Heller and therefore I think it's more feasible - sort of along the lines of how anti-abortion advocates were able to get the SC to keep narrowing Roe before now evidently finally just throwing it out.

---

e pluribus unum

Quote
Spock

Quote
Ted King


All avenues of addressing the gun violence problem at the root are very hard/unlikely. I agree that getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is the rootist of the root problems but is also the hardest thing to actually get done and most unlikely to happen.

Ted, by being reasonable you are taking a knife to a gun fight. The gun makers and their bloody handed supporters will play dirty to keep their profits and toys. You have to be just as ruthless, just as persistent and just as determined and be prepared to play the long game. This is no quick fix and is likely to be generational. Keep the pressure on and never let up. In time common sense must prevail.

See my response to Acer above.

---

e pluribus unum

Would Uvalde have happened if you had to be 25 y.o. to purchase an AR style gun?

Would Uvalde have happened if Salvador Ramos had been subject to a deep dive background check (irrespective of his age)?

Would Uvalde have happened if Salvador Ramos had been subject to a current psych eval at the time of his purchases, incl. above background check?

Would Uvalde have happened if the gun sellers faced a $1M fine for each of the weapons Salvador Ramos purchased to use for his mass shootings?

Would Uvalde have happened if the ammo sellers faced a $1M fine for any of the ammo Salvador Ramos purchased to use for his mass shootings?

Would Uvalde have happened if Salvador Ramos' parents, friends, relatives, internet confidants faced a $100K fine for knowing he was a crazy?

There is greater than a 99.9999% chance that Uvalde (and a lot of other mass casualty shootings) would NOT have happened if Salvador Ramos (and his ilk) had been subject to the "Buzz's Common Sense Gun Plan"..... as the odds of a (or any) deranged kid like him navigating those first six steps of the gauntlet border on infinitesimal, even if he (they) had some help.

#7 isn't applicable, as it doesn't sound like large cap mags were used in Uvalde.

#8 & #9 are largely inapplicable because Ramos couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't have gotten thru #'s 1 - 6 had they been in force.

#10 & #11's influence cannot be determined under the Uvalde circumstances.

Get the guns outa the hands of the crazies, and gun violence is largely curtailed. Crazies can't be involved in mass shootings if their path to gun access/ownership is restricted by a reasonable, common sense gun control plan that need not adversely impair otherwise legitimate gun ownership pursuant to the 2nd Amendment.

Make laws that curtail the crazies' access to guns. Let's start there, and take the wins where we can; banning all things gun from all people is not the place to start in a country where there are already more guns than there are people. Make the crazies, and the people that enable them to get guns and ammo, liable for any/all gun violence caused by the crazies, and such gun violence will plummet.
==

Quote
Buzz
...Make laws that curtail the crazies' access to guns. Let's start there, and take the wins where we can; banning all things gun from all people is not the place to start in a country where there are already more guns than there are people. Make the crazies, and the people that enable them to get guns and ammo, liable for any/all gun violence caused by the crazies, and such gun violence will plummet.
==

On top of having a more realistic chance of being enacted (vs. "banning all things gun"), it's something that should be somewhat easy to implement, as it could make use of existing mechanisms already in place (i.e. NICS - add results of "red flag" to NICS and make NICS mandatory for ALL firearms transfers). As I posted earlier - even Donald Trump was on-board for a "red flag" law the last time it was attempted.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Racer X

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Racer X
cars are more regulated than firearms? Are you serious? Anyone can buy are car/truck. No regulation at all. No background check, no check to see if you have a drivers license, nothing. Convicted multiple violent felon? No problem. Just say "Here's your cash, and thanks for the keys".

Now you have a car/truck. Licensing your vehicle is for taxes, not safety. They don't check anything when you hand the DOL your title to transfer it. Violent multiple felon? No problem, they don't even ask, 3 prior DUIs? No problem. Proof of insurance? They don't even ask, at least in Washington. How, and in what way, is that more regulated than the 2 background checks, and the 10 day waiting period, that we have in Washington for a Ruger 10/22 squirrel rifle?

And how is alcohol more regulated? Hi, I'd like to buy some alcohol. Here's my ID that says I'm over 21, and here's your money, Oh, and thanks for the alcohol. Where in the US is it any different?

Show me anything like this for civilian gun manufacturing:
[www.nhtsa.gov]

No point buying a car if you have no license. That license shows you have training and safety knowledge and have not gotten into trouble with your car. And a car is not designed to be a killing machine. it is designed to keep people safe.

Did the Buffalo or Uvalde shooters have a license to operate those high powered military style assault weapons? Those are designed to kill as many people as possible, in as little time as possible. No license needed though.

Convicted multiple violent felons can have a driver's license. They can't have a firearm. Still want to know how for the end user, that a car is more regulated than a firearm.

Same for alcohol. I think I just illustrated that it isn't.

"More regulated " refers to the actual number of laws concerning the manufacture, sale and use of the product.

Oh, and that person with multiple felony convictions cam drive his car to a gun show and buy whatever he wants from a private seller, no questions asked.

Alcohol. Production, sale, consumption...all regulated. Ypu can conceal carry guns in more public places than you could openly drink alcohol. And you have to be 21, so we are already far ahead of the assault rifle situation.

The defense rests.

Have a good and safe Memorial Day weekend Racer X.

"Oh, and that person with multiple felony convictions cam drive his car to a gun show and buy whatever he wants from a private seller, no questions asked."

Depends on the state. In Washington, ALL sales, dealer or private, and all TRANSFERS (gifts to other than immediate family members) MUST have a federal NICS background check. If it is a pistol, additional local County/City background check, and up to 10 day wait. If it is an evil squirrel assault rifle with a removable magazine, there is the same County/City check, and a mandatory 10 day wait, even if you are given a "PROCEED" at day 2. Even a police officer gets to wait. Or an FBI agent.

And "Oh, and that person with multiple felony convictions cam drive his car to a gun show and buy whatever he wants from a private seller, no questions asked." Absolutely can't legally buy a fully automatic weapon, private seller or not, at a gun show, or anywhere else. Being a felon prohibits owning ANY firearm. The single overarching Federal regulation that supersedes all State, County and City laws. No felons. A Federal District Court judge, depending on the conviction, and your record, maybe, after a long time of being a decent human being, might restore that right.

I have not purchased in all 50 states so I can not personally attest to the process everywhere.

Do not make sweeping, all encompassing statements and present them as fact unless you KNOW they are fact. Come up to Seattle, and you can follow me through the process of buying a squirrel assault rifle. It will be 10 working days before it comes home with us. We can go to a gun show, and the same laws apply. You will watch me show State issued, current ID, and go through a Federal NICS check, and a Seattle check (Red Flag stuff or a Protection Order that might have just happened yesterday, I assume) In East Horse Turd Tennessee, I couldn't tell you. Washington State, I know from long personal experience.


"Alcohol. Production, sale, consumption...all regulated. Ypu can conceal carry guns in more public places than you could openly drink alcohol. And you have to be 21, so we are already far ahead of the assault rifle situation. "

90% of those regulations have no effect on the end user buying and using the product. Same with an auto/truck. You know that. The design and testing specs for tail light brightness have nothing to do with whether I can buy a car, or if the seat belts were or were not sewn by Asian child labor. Regulated? Yes. Relevant? Absolutely not.

Its against the law to carry a firearm, concealed or otherwise, permitted or otherwise, into a bar, tavern or lounge section of a restaurant, in Washington State. Any place with a beer/wine, or beer/wine/liquor license, so temporary events like a festival with a beer garden, the beer garden is off limits. So WHERE are these public places I can carry but not openly drink in Washington State? Honestly, I can't think of one.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2022 07:34PM by Racer X.

And buying a car? Come over to my place, give me a dollar bill, and my partner will sign the title for a '78 Datsun 510 over to you. Congratulations. You now legally own a car. Now take that title to the local licensing agency, and show them a current Washington State Identification card, for proof of address only, and register said car. Remember, you have a signed title. You own it. Registration is only for taxes and to use public roads. You can drive on private property all you want. So can your 10 year old. So can your 90 yo legally blind great grandfather. All legal. No need to register it. That title proves ownership.

You come over and give me a dollar, and I give you a Ruger 10/22 squirrel assault rifle, and if you just leave my property, we BOTH broke state law.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2022 07:42PM by Racer X.

My state requires that I have liability insurance on my car to register and license it, and my city even if it is always kept on private property. Are you required to carry liability insurance on your guns?

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

San Jose is trying it. Doubt it will stick.

Washington does NOT require proof of insurance to transfer title or to license the vehicle. I can own and license a vehicle, and never need insurance, if I don't drive it. Might sound odd, but to park on the street, you need a current license on the vehicle. Does not imply I am driving it. Make sense? Maybe my partner has insurance and I let HER drive it. I can see valid reasons for both, but I understand your point.

You could sign up for insurance, get your license, then drop it the next day. No way to stop it. Only way anyone in Washington would know is if you get pulled over, and can't show proof of insurance. It's on the honor system, until you crash and they find out. That's why in Washington, it is mandatory for my auto insurance to include under/uninsured coverage. State Insurance Commissioner mandate.

I can see personal liability insurance, which I assume every homeowner has anyway, as part of their mortgage via homeowner's insurance. Mine is 1 million, and cap of 3 for the whole family.

Not saying I agree, but I have insurance, and am covered. They know because I have a rider for firearms and for camera gear.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2022 11:21PM by Racer X.

Quote
Racer X

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Racer X

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Racer X
cars are more regulated than firearms? Are you serious? Anyone can buy are car/truck. No regulation at all. No background check, no check to see if you have a drivers license, nothing. Convicted multiple violent felon? No problem. Just say "Here's your cash, and thanks for the keys".

Now you have a car/truck. Licensing your vehicle is for taxes, not safety. They don't check anything when you hand the DOL your title to transfer it. Violent multiple felon? No problem, they don't even ask, 3 prior DUIs? No problem. Proof of insurance? They don't even ask, at least in Washington. How, and in what way, is that more regulated than the 2 background checks, and the 10 day waiting period, that we have in Washington for a Ruger 10/22 squirrel rifle?

And how is alcohol more regulated? Hi, I'd like to buy some alcohol. Here's my ID that says I'm over 21, and here's your money, Oh, and thanks for the alcohol. Where in the US is it any different?

Show me anything like this for civilian gun manufacturing:
[www.nhtsa.gov]

No point buying a car if you have no license. That license shows you have training and safety knowledge and have not gotten into trouble with your car. And a car is not designed to be a killing machine. it is designed to keep people safe.

Did the Buffalo or Uvalde shooters have a license to operate those high powered military style assault weapons? Those are designed to kill as many people as possible, in as little time as possible. No license needed though.

Convicted multiple violent felons can have a driver's license. They can't have a firearm. Still want to know how for the end user, that a car is more regulated than a firearm.

Same for alcohol. I think I just illustrated that it isn't.

"More regulated " refers to the actual number of laws concerning the manufacture, sale and use of the product.

Oh, and that person with multiple felony convictions cam drive his car to a gun show and buy whatever he wants from a private seller, no questions asked.

Alcohol. Production, sale, consumption...all regulated. Ypu can conceal carry guns in more public places than you could openly drink alcohol. And you have to be 21, so we are already far ahead of the assault rifle situation.

The defense rests.

Have a good and safe Memorial Day weekend Racer X.

"Oh, and that person with multiple felony convictions cam drive his car to a gun show and buy whatever he wants from a private seller, no questions asked."

Depends on the state. In Washington, ALL sales, dealer or private, and all TRANSFERS (gifts to other than immediate family members) MUST have a federal NICS background check. If it is a pistol, additional local County/City background check, and up to 10 day wait. If it is an evil squirrel assault rifle with a removable magazine, there is the same County/City check, and a mandatory 10 day wait, even if you are given a "PROCEED" at day 2. Even a police officer gets to wait. Or an FBI agent.

And "Oh, and that person with multiple felony convictions cam drive his car to a gun show and buy whatever he wants from a private seller, no questions asked." Absolutely can't legally buy a fully automatic weapon, private seller or not, at a gun show, or anywhere else. Being a felon prohibits owning ANY firearm. The single overarching Federal regulation that supersedes all State, County and City laws. No felons. A Federal District Court judge, depending on the conviction, and your record, maybe, after a long time of being a decent human being, might restore that right.

I have not purchased in all 50 states so I can not personally attest to the process everywhere.

Do not make sweeping, all encompassing statements and present them as fact unless you KNOW they are fact. Come up to Seattle, and you can follow me through the process of buying a squirrel assault rifle. It will be 10 working days before it comes home with us. We can go to a gun show, and the same laws apply. You will watch me show State issued, current ID, and go through a Federal NICS check, and a Seattle check (Red Flag stuff or a Protection Order that might have just happened yesterday, I assume) In East Horse Turd Tennessee, I couldn't tell you. Washington State, I know from long personal experience.


"Alcohol. Production, sale, consumption...all regulated. Ypu can conceal carry guns in more public places than you could openly drink alcohol. And you have to be 21, so we are already far ahead of the assault rifle situation. "

90% of those regulations have no effect on the end user buying and using the product. Same with an auto/truck. You know that. The design and testing specs for tail light brightness have nothing to do with whether I can buy a car, or if the seat belts were or were not sewn by Asian child labor. Regulated? Yes. Relevant? Absolutely not.

Its against the law to carry a firearm, concealed or otherwise, permitted or otherwise, into a bar, tavern or lounge section of a restaurant, in Washington State. Any place with a beer/wine, or beer/wine/liquor license, so temporary events like a festival with a beer garden, the beer garden is off limits. So WHERE are these public places I can carry but not openly drink in Washington State? Honestly, I can't think of one.

Good morning Racer X, it's Grace.

Allow me to bore you with some biographical details. I lived in the Puget Sound region for 22 years. My kids grew up there. I still own my house in West Seattle. I moved back to South Carolina, where I grew up, in early 2020 to take care of my elderly Mom. Who will wake up in an hour to get ready for church.

Washington state is where I did the bulk of my gun responsibility advocacy work. I spent countless hours down in Olympia at judicial committee hearings listening to victim's families, police, prosecutors, pediatricians, teachers, etc. literally cry and beg for common sense gun safety regulatioms. Thanks to volunteers and voters and legislators and the governor and AG...
YOU NOW HAVE THOSE COMMON SENSE LAWS.

You're welcome.

Please, I beg you, familiarize yourself with the rest of the country's hot mess of slack ass and getting worse all the time lack of basic common sense gun safety measures. You could be a very good advocate since you are in the business and appear to care about public health and safety.

The rest of us are not as fortunate as Washington state residents when it comes to this issue. Please help us. Get on the right side of this and help save our country.

Lemon Drop, thank you for what you have accomplished.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
Ted King

Quote
Spock

Quote
Ted King


All avenues of addressing the gun violence problem at the root are very hard/unlikely. I agree that getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is the rootist of the root problems but is also the hardest thing to actually get done and most unlikely to happen.

Ted, by being reasonable you are taking a knife to a gun fight. The gun makers and their bloody handed supporters will play dirty to keep their profits and toys. You have to be just as ruthless, just as persistent and just as determined and be prepared to play the long game. This is no quick fix and is likely to be generational. Keep the pressure on and never let up. In time common sense must prevail.

See my response to Acer above.

Ted I'm not saying that incremental improvements aren't important and much needed, they are. However they are only a band-aid and are not enough to solve the problem. Repeal of the second amendment would negate Heller and allow a legislative fresh start with limited gun ownership coupled with licensing and legal responsibility.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

Quote
Spock

Quote
Ted King

Quote
Spock

Quote
Ted King


All avenues of addressing the gun violence problem at the root are very hard/unlikely. I agree that getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is the rootist of the root problems but is also the hardest thing to actually get done and most unlikely to happen.

Ted, by being reasonable you are taking a knife to a gun fight. The gun makers and their bloody handed supporters will play dirty to keep their profits and toys. You have to be just as ruthless, just as persistent and just as determined and be prepared to play the long game. This is no quick fix and is likely to be generational. Keep the pressure on and never let up. In time common sense must prevail.

See my response to Acer above.

Ted I'm not saying that incremental improvements aren't important and much needed, they are. However they are only a band-aid and are not enough to solve the problem. Repeal of the second amendment would negate Heller and allow a legislative fresh start with limited gun ownership coupled with licensing and legal responsibility.

Spock, I appreciate what you're saying but I have to disagree. Even in the highly unlikely event that the 2nd amendment were repealed, that would not solve our epidemic of gun violence. State could continue to allow nearly unfettered access to guns as some do now.

There are things we can do within our current constitutional framework.

Americans are not going to give up the right to own a personal firearm for safety, hunting or other sporting purpose.

The massive arsenal of guns and ammunition that already exists isn't going away anytime soon.

So. What we CAN do is pass federal legislation that ensures safety across state lines regarding what manufacturers make, how they are sold and transferred, who can buy and possess them, and where they can be carried or displayed.

Then states can make even stricter laws if they want, but at least we wouldn't have all the criminals getting their weapons in a handful of slacker states to wreak havoc on the rest of us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2022 11:52AM by Lemon Drop.

There you go again, Grace, being reasonable, looking for common ground, searching for a compromise. Just as it should be in a civilized society The problem is we don’t live in a civilized society, we live in a sick society where little kids lives are sacrificed on the altar of gun makers profits. The cancer that is driving this sickness is the second amendment and the only cure for this cancer is to cut it out, excise it from the body politic.

The gunners will obfuscate, delay and then ask for more time. They did it after Columbine, they did it after Sandy Hook, they did it after Majorie Stoneman Douglas, they will do it now as they have after all the other mass killings too numerous to mention. They will try and run out the clock till the next outrage. It's worked for them so far.

The second amendment has to go. It's the bedrock the gunners stand on. They think it's sacrosanct, it isn't. Only when it is removed can we as a society treat gun ownership as a privilege and not a substitute for a little dick. But that privilege will have to come with legal responsibilities :- Licensing & Registration, insurance, safety locks, regular training and certification. I agree with Ted and others, ban all semi-automatic weapons. Institute Nationwide Federal regulations and licensing boards with a national mandatory gun buy back . No State or Local ones that the “good ‘ole boys” can get round.

Sure, it’s going to take years, generations even but we start with the kids. They have to be told that their friend were killed because of the second amendment. Any time a mass killing is mentioned we all have to say “They died because of the Second Amendment, it has to be repealed”. Little voices to begin with but if we persist then in time it will turn into a mighty roar. It can be done, it must be done.



Repeal the Second Ammendment.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

What about those of us who are alive BECAUSE of the 2nd Amendment?

Is my life worth less than someone else? Would I be considered an acceptable loss?

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X
What about those of us who are alive BECAUSE of the 2nd Amendment?

Is my life worth less than someone else? Would I be considered an acceptable loss?

[www.youtube.com]

"SomeONEl", no, but "...10,258 gun murders in the U.S. in 2019..."

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Racer X
What about those of us who are alive BECAUSE of the 2nd Amendment?

Is my life worth less than someone else? Would I be considered an acceptable loss?

[www.youtube.com]

"SomeONEl", no, but "...10,258 gun murders in the U.S. in 2019..."

People will still be dying. Shifting numbers between column.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Racer X
What about those of us who are alive BECAUSE of the 2nd Amendment?

Is my life worth less than someone else? Would I be considered an acceptable loss?

[www.youtube.com]

"SomeONEl", no, but "...10,258 gun murders in the U.S. in 2019..."

People will still be dying. Shifting numbers between column.

I have no idea what you're trying to declare there. Please be more specific.

Some people are ALIVE because of firearms. So taking them away from those who would have been saved by carrying one will cost some lives.

Right now, I have control over my safety. Being disabled limits my option to protect myself. Is taking that away reasonable?

I can post FBI table #20 again. MASSIVE list of the different non-firearm ways to kill a person.

Shifting numbers in columns.

That's why I keep saying "Fix the People" That's about why are people harming others.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X
Some people are ALIVE because of firearms. So taking them away from those who would have been saved by carrying one will cost some lives.

Right now, I have control over my safety. Being disabled limits my option to protect myself. Is taking that away reasonable?

I can post FBI table #20 again. MASSIVE list of the different non-firearm ways to kill a person.

Shifting numbers in columns.

That's why I keep saying "Fix the People" That's about why are people harming others.

"Gun Deaths Over the Last 40 Years ... 1,357,000 people have died from gun violence."

Sorry for your individual experiences, BUT in my judgment, the lives of those 1,357,000 people killed by a gun DO outweigh the statistically negligible number of those "saved" by guns.

[publichealth.jhu.edu]

It is very possible people defend themselves more often than you think.

[nap.nationalacademies.org]

In this chapter, we consider what is known about the extent and nature of defensive gun use (DGU). Over the past decade, researchers have attempted to measure the prevalence of defensive gun use in the population. This measurement problem has proved to be quite complex, with some estimates suggesting just over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year and others suggesting 2.5 million or more defensive gun uses per year.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [doi.org].

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X
It is very possible people defend themselves more often than you think.

[nap.nationalacademies.org]

In this chapter, we consider what is known about the extent and nature of defensive gun use (DGU). Over the past decade, researchers have attempted to measure the prevalence of defensive gun use in the population. This measurement problem has proved to be quite complex, with some estimates suggesting just over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year and others suggesting 2.5 million or more defensive gun uses per year.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [doi.org].

How many of those defensive gun uses were against other gunners who may well not have become a perceived threat without the gun they were using?

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
Racer X
It is very possible people defend themselves more often than you think.

[nap.nationalacademies.org]

In this chapter, we consider what is known about the extent and nature of defensive gun use (DGU). Over the past decade, researchers have attempted to measure the prevalence of defensive gun use in the population. This measurement problem has proved to be quite complex, with some estimates suggesting just over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year and others suggesting 2.5 million or more defensive gun uses per year.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [doi.org].

From that same document:

“…found [that] using the NSDS-type survey would be biased if respondents report defensive gun uses based on mistaken perceptions of harmless encounters.”

“Whether one is a defender (of oneself or others) or a perpetrator, for example, may depend on perspective…some uses against supposed criminals may legally amount to aggravated assault. Likewise, protecting oneself against possible or perceived harm may be different from protecting oneself while being victimized.”

“…the decision to own a firearm may be directly related to the likelihood of being victimized.”

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Racer X
It is very possible people defend themselves more often than you think.

[nap.nationalacademies.org]

In this chapter, we consider what is known about the extent and nature of defensive gun use (DGU). Over the past decade, researchers have attempted to measure the prevalence of defensive gun use in the population. This measurement problem has proved to be quite complex, with some estimates suggesting just over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year and others suggesting 2.5 million or more defensive gun uses per year.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [doi.org].

From that same document:

“…found [that] using the NSDS-type survey would be biased if respondents report defensive gun uses based on mistaken perceptions of harmless encounters.”

“Whether one is a defender (of oneself or others) or a perpetrator, for example, may depend on perspective…some uses against supposed criminals may legally amount to aggravated assault. Likewise, protecting oneself against possible or perceived harm may be different from protecting oneself while being victimized.”

“…the decision to own a firearm may be directly related to the likelihood of being victimized.”

The issue has always been, someone not dying isn't a record able event, someone dying is. But even without records, it is obvious it must be occurring. Absence of proof doesn't mean it didn't occur. Ask a rape victim who doesn't have proof. Does that mean it didn't happen?

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

All these criminals who have allegedly been shot, why do they not go to the hospital?

Hospitals show no such record of these alleged hundreds of thousands of shot criminals.

And criminals DO go to the hospital when they are injured while committing crimes.

Anyway, Harvard Public Health did an excellent rundown on the ways Americans DO shoot each other. And the myths.

[www.hsph.harvard.edu]

Quote
Racer X

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Racer X
It is very possible people defend themselves more often than you think.

[nap.nationalacademies.org]

In this chapter, we consider what is known about the extent and nature of defensive gun use (DGU). Over the past decade, researchers have attempted to measure the prevalence of defensive gun use in the population. This measurement problem has proved to be quite complex, with some estimates suggesting just over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year and others suggesting 2.5 million or more defensive gun uses per year.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [doi.org].

From that same document:

“…found [that] using the NSDS-type survey would be biased if respondents report defensive gun uses based on mistaken perceptions of harmless encounters.”

“Whether one is a defender (of oneself or others) or a perpetrator, for example, may depend on perspective…some uses against supposed criminals may legally amount to aggravated assault. Likewise, protecting oneself against possible or perceived harm may be different from protecting oneself while being victimized.”

“…the decision to own a firearm may be directly related to the likelihood of being victimized.”

The issue has always been, someone not dying isn't a record able event, someone dying is. But even without records, it is obvious it must be occurring. Absence of proof doesn't mean it didn't occur. Ask a rape victim who doesn't have proof. Does that mean it didn't happen?

It’s like you’re not even reading the responses to your posts.

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Racer X

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Racer X
It is very possible people defend themselves more often than you think.

[nap.nationalacademies.org]

In this chapter, we consider what is known about the extent and nature of defensive gun use (DGU). Over the past decade, researchers have attempted to measure the prevalence of defensive gun use in the population. This measurement problem has proved to be quite complex, with some estimates suggesting just over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year and others suggesting 2.5 million or more defensive gun uses per year.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [doi.org].

From that same document:

“…found [that] using the NSDS-type survey would be biased if respondents report defensive gun uses based on mistaken perceptions of harmless encounters.”

“Whether one is a defender (of oneself or others) or a perpetrator, for example, may depend on perspective…some uses against supposed criminals may legally amount to aggravated assault. Likewise, protecting oneself against possible or perceived harm may be different from protecting oneself while being victimized.”

“…the decision to own a firearm may be directly related to the likelihood of being victimized.”

The issue has always been, someone not dying isn't a record able event, someone dying is. But even without records, it is obvious it must be occurring. Absence of proof doesn't mean it didn't occur. Ask a rape victim who doesn't have proof. Does that mean it didn't happen?

It’s like you’re not even reading the responses to your posts.

both times I defended myself, I never fired. Many criminals are cowards and run when they encounter resistance. So, why would they go to a hospital?

The guy that stabbed me took off when I drew my pistol. You don't shoot someone who is fleeing. The other guy who fired at me from a moderate distance, took off when he realized I was armed. Once again, you don't shoot someone in the back. If they are retreating, there is no longer an immediate threat to your life.

So we now have 2 cases where I defended myself, and the perps never went to the hospital. Does that mean they never happened? I've got the scars to prove they did. Do you REALLY think I am the only one on the planet that this has happened to?

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X
So we now have 2 cases where I defended myself, and the perps never went to the hospital. Does that mean they never happened? I've got the scars to prove they did. Do you REALLY think I am the only one on the planet that this has happened to?

Clearly not: 1,357,000 people killed by a gun. You would not have been shot had we banned guns. However, you would have been knifed. I’m glad you chose, in both circumstances, not to add to the total of gun deaths.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
Racer X
both times I defended myself, I never fired. Many criminals are cowards and run when they encounter resistance. So, why would they go to a hospital?

Since you "never fired", it can be concluded that in your two encounters, all you needed was something that LOOKED like a gun.

Quote
Racer X
The guy that stabbed me took off when I drew my pistol. You don't shoot someone who is fleeing. The other guy who fired at me from a moderate distance, took off when he realized I was armed. Once again, you don't shoot someone in the back. If they are retreating, there is no longer an immediate threat to your life.

Clearly having your gun did NOT prevent you from being stabbed. XXX Curious, why did the guy stab you in the first place? How many times did he stab you?

Quote
Racer X
So we now have 2 cases where I defended myself, and the perps never went to the hospital. Does that mean they never happened? I've got the scars to prove they did. Do you REALLY think I am the only one on the planet that this has happened to?

Survivorship bias "...the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not..."

Faulty generalization "...a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon."

Quote
Lemon Drop
All these criminals who have allegedly been shot, why do they not go to the hospital?

Hospitals show no such record of these alleged hundreds of thousands of shot criminals.

And criminals DO go to the hospital when they are injured while committing crimes.

Anyway, Harvard Public Health did an excellent rundown on the ways Americans DO shoot each other. And the myths.

[www.hsph.harvard.edu]

Quote
Racer
So we now have 2 cases where I defended myself, and the perps never went to the hospital. Does that mean they never happened? I've got the scars to prove they did. Do you REALLY think I am the only one on the planet that this has happened to?

The information I provided has nothing to do with your anecdotes. That data about hospital admissions of criminals who have been shot by a person they attacked is from Harvard researchers.

Read the link above. It is a direct rebuttal, with abundant evidence, of the self=defense gun usage claims that folks like yourself make.