Quote
Mr645
[www.aol.com]

2 shot, 1 dead, shooter faces no charges

Quote
DeusxMac
The root motivation - and justification; conscious or subconscious - for gun ownership is FEAR.
- Fear of the “bad guy”
- Fear of the “others”
- Fear of all unknowns

This fear is expressed at three progressively obsessive states:
1. Caution: They might come!
2. Fear-manifest: They are coming!
3. Paranoia: They are here!

There are also ancillary, fear-related supporting motivations:
- Machismo/manliness - Fear of appearing weak, effeminate
- Peer pressure - Fear of being ostracized by friends, being excluded

Quote
DeusxMac
The root motivation - and justification; conscious or subconscious - for gun ownership is FEAR.
- Fear of the “bad guy”
- Fear of the “others”
- Fear of all unknowns

This fear is expressed at three progressively obsessive states:
1. Caution: They might come!
2. Fear-manifest: They are coming!
3. Paranoia: They are here!

There are also ancillary, fear-related supporting motivations:
- Machismo/manliness - Fear of appearing weak, effeminate
- Peer pressure - Fear of being ostracized by friends, being excluded

Quote
Smote

Quote
DeusxMac
The root motivation - and justification; conscious or subconscious - for gun ownership is FEAR.
- Fear of the “bad guy”
- Fear of the “others”
- Fear of all unknowns

This fear is expressed at three progressively obsessive states:
1. Caution: They might come!
2. Fear-manifest: They are coming!
3. Paranoia: They are here!

There are also ancillary, fear-related supporting motivations:
- Machismo/manliness - Fear of appearing weak, effeminate
- Peer pressure - Fear of being ostracized by friends, being excluded

where is the fear and paranoia component in winter and summer biathletes competing with single shot, bolt action .22LR firearms?

I am awaiting your response, and will be fascinated with your reply.

Quote
Smote
Dodging the question - self evident

Deflecting- a method of dodging a question

you represented your post as a universal all encompasing reason.

a refresher

"The root motivation - and justification; conscious or subconscious - for gun ownership is FEAR. " not some, many, a few, etc,

Quote
Acer
Why did these men break into the house?

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Smote
Dodging the question - self evident

Deflecting- a method of dodging a question

you represented your post as a universal all encompassing reason.

a refresher

"The root motivation - and justification; conscious or subconscious - for gun ownership is FEAR. " not some, many, a few, etc,

Hoped it would be plainly obvious… but guess I need to spell it out.

False equivalence – describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.

Survivorship bias – a small number of successes of a given process are actively promoted while completely ignoring a large number of failures.

The fallacious equating of the minuscule numbers of biathlon athletes and their highly specialized bolt-action rifles with the over 393,000,000 guns of all types in the hands of the U.S. general public.

Quote
Smote
My wife owns her rifle because she won it in a raffle.

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
My wife owns her rifle because she won it in a raffle.

Wow!

There is so much “wrong” coming out in that one sentence.

Quote
Smote

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
My wife owns her rifle because she won it in a raffle.

Wow!

There is so much “wrong” coming out in that one sentence.

That's incredibly judgemental. You have never met her, nor do you know the context of the charity raffle, or if perhaps she is law enforcement or active duty military.

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
My wife owns her rifle because she won it in a raffle.

Wow!

There is so much “wrong” coming out in that one sentence.

That's incredibly judgemental. You have never met her, nor do you know the context of the charity raffle, or if perhaps she is law enforcement or active duty military.

Still terribly wrong whether soldiers or law enforcement.

Quote
Smote

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Smote
Dodging the question - self evident

Deflecting- a method of dodging a question

you represented your post as a universal all encompassing reason.

a refresher

"The root motivation - and justification; conscious or subconscious - for gun ownership is FEAR. " not some, many, a few, etc,

Hoped it would be plainly obvious… but guess I need to spell it out.

False equivalence – describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.

Survivorship bias – a small number of successes of a given process are actively promoted while completely ignoring a large number of failures.

The fallacious equating of the minuscule numbers of biathlon athletes and their highly specialized bolt-action rifles with the over 393,000,000 guns of all types in the hands of the U.S. general public.

But you represented your statement as all encompasing, by not having any qualifiers. Sounds like a stereotype to me. Stereotypes are bad you know.

My wife owns her rifle because she won it in a raffle. Was her purchasing her tickets done out of fear? Or just the desire to win the fishing equipment or the spa gift certificate? Your astute insight is anxiously awaited.

Anyone ever hear of an Olympic free pistol used in a murder or robbery? How about an Anschutz Exemplar? Remington XP-100? Brown Bess? Or for that matter, a Winchester Bulldog gatling gun? CVA kit gun?

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
My wife owns her rifle because she won it in a raffle.

Wow!

There is so much “wrong” coming out in that one sentence.

That's incredibly judgemental. You have never met her, nor do you know the context of the charity raffle, or if perhaps she is law enforcement or active duty military.

Still terribly wrong whether soldiers or law enforcement.

Quote

where is the fear and paranoia component in winter and summer biathletes competing with single shot, bolt action .22LR firearms?

I am awaiting your response, and will be fascinated with your reply.

Quote
Smote
But you represented your statement as all encompasing, by not having any qualifiers. Sounds like a stereotype to me. Stereotypes are bad you know.

Quote
Smote
My wife owns her rifle because she won it in a raffle. Was her purchasing her tickets done out of fear? Or just the desire to win the fishing equipment or the spa gift certificate? Your astute insight is anxiously awaited.

Quote
Smote
Anyone ever hear of an Olympic free pistol used in a murder or robbery? How about an Anschutz Exemplar? Remington XP-100? Brown Bess? Or for that matter, a Winchester Bulldog gatling gun? CVA kit gun?

Quote

We studied 18 million adults living in California. Nearly 2,300 of them died by homicide over the 12 years of the study. …The study’s goal was to see whether homicides were more or less likely to occur in homes with handguns.

Previous studies have probed that question, with virtually all finding higher homicide rates in homes with guns. But our study had three novel features.

First…we focused on household members who lived with handgun owners but weren’t themselves owners. [Second, very large study]…

… Finally, in measuring homicide risks…the comparisons were always made between people residing in the same neighborhood.

Quote

People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes…

Study findings in one other area were noteworthy: homicides perpetrated by strangers. Homicides of this kind were relatively uncommon in our study population—much less common than deaths perpetrated by the victim’s partner, family members, or friends. But when they happened, people living with gun owners did not experience them less often than people in gun-free homes.

This result clashes with a classic narrative promulgated by gun rights groups: firearm owners use their weapon to turn away or overpower a threatening intruder, thereby protecting home and hearth. We did not detect even a hint of such protective benefits.

Quote
pdq
The actual study is here, published last year in the Annals of Internal Medicine (which is peer-reviewed, of course).

Quote
Smote

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
My wife owns her rifle because she won it in a raffle.

Wow!

There is so much “wrong” coming out in that one sentence.

That's incredibly judgemental. You have never met her, nor do you know the context of the charity raffle, or if perhaps she is law enforcement or active duty military.

Still terribly wrong whether soldiers or law enforcement.

so, if the base family welfare office has a raffle to raise money for scholarships to summer camp for base kids, and among other things, they have fishing equipment, a hunting rifle, spa certificates, gift baskets, gift cards etc, and a member of law enforcement wins the rifle, it's somehow many ways wrong?

Quote
Mr645
More driving leads to more car crashes

Quote
sekker
I come from a full military family. I have siblings (male and female) and in-laws, a late uncle, and my father all as responsible gun owners.

I live in a state where it is your state constitutional right to hunt and fish, and many of my friends own rifles etc.

Not a single one of those friends is against sensible gun laws.

Quote
Smote
the bar graph above is missing the Falkland Islands 3,000 people, 2,000 firearms. British protectorate.

Quote
Acer
The court has been ignoring the "well-regulated militia" clause for a long time, but ignoring it indeed.

Quote
Smote

Quote
Acer
The court has been ignoring the "well-regulated militia" clause for a long time, but ignoring it indeed.

Please feel free to eliminate confusion by ammending [sic] the Constitution.

The historical context of "well regulated militia" doesn't mean what you want it to mean, according to case law and Supreme Court decisions. Ultimately, yours, or my wishes are irrelevant.

Quote
Acer
OUR collective wishes are very relevant, being you know, a democracy and all.

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Smote

Quote
Acer
The court has been ignoring the "well-regulated militia" clause for a long time, but ignoring it indeed.

Please feel free to eliminate confusion by ammending [sic] the Constitution.

The historical context of "well regulated militia" doesn't mean what you want it to mean, according to case law and Supreme Court decisions. Ultimately, yours, or my wishes are irrelevant.

How many times will you require a response before you at least understand it, even if you don't agree??

"No need for a Constitutional amendment, just need to overturn District of Columbia v. Heller and adhere to the Amendment AS IT WAS CLEARLY WRITTEN!"

"- The Roe v. Wade decision was the law… until it wasn’t.

- The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was the law… until it wasn’t.

District of Columbia v. Heller could ALSO be overturned!"

Quote
Smote

Quote
Acer
OUR collective wishes are very relevant, being you know, a democracy and all.

then get EVERYONE to stand up and change the Constitution. Unless, of course, not enough people believe the way you do. Democracy works both ways. Not enough voices can't make the change. So right now, today, "Our" must be too small of a number to make that change.

Quote
Smote
SCOTUS is very reluctant to reverse a prior decision. It doesn't happen very often at all. It sets up the belief that a group of SC justices make mistakes, and can over rule those before them at will. So unless the law changes drastically, the rulings can't change, according to my understanding. Once again, any lawyers want to chime in with their understanding of how SCOTUS operates? Any supreme court bar members here? I ask that, as their rules are different as I understand it. Incredibly civil and polite to a fault for example.

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
SCOTUS is very reluctant to reverse a prior decision. It doesn't happen very often at all. It sets up the belief that a group of SC justices make mistakes, and can over rule those before them at will. So unless the law changes drastically, the rulings can't change, according to my understanding. Once again, any lawyers want to chime in with their understanding of how SCOTUS operates? Any supreme court bar members here? I ask that, as their rules are different as I understand it. Incredibly civil and polite to a fault for example.

"Reluctant" isn't the same as "unvarying." And sometimes they're not even reluctant.

The current deathly chaotic state of medical care for pregnant women in this country is due to SCOTUS cavalierly reversing an earlier decision.

FYI, here's a convenient list of SCOTUS cases that have been reversed.
[constitution.congress.gov]

...Mind you, SCOTUS often modifies a previous decision. For example, they may create a new test to offer guidance to lower courts. These are not considered reversals of the earlier decisions.

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
SCOTUS is very reluctant to reverse a prior decision. It doesn't happen very often at all. It sets up the belief that a group of SC justices make mistakes, and can over rule those before them at will. So unless the law changes drastically, the rulings can't change, according to my understanding. Once again, any lawyers want to chime in with their understanding of how SCOTUS operates? Any supreme court bar members here? I ask that, as their rules are different as I understand it. Incredibly civil and polite to a fault for example.

"Reluctant" isn't the same as "unvarying." And sometimes they're not even reluctant.

The current deathly chaotic state of medical care for pregnant women in this country is due to SCOTUS cavalierly reversing an earlier decision.

FYI, here's a convenient list of SCOTUS cases that have been reversed.
[constitution.congress.gov]

...Mind you, SCOTUS often modifies a previous decision. For example, they may create a new test to offer guidance to lower courts. These are not considered reversals of the earlier decisions.

Quote
Smote
just a quick scan looks like maybe a few, or less every year or so, and it looks like the majority are decades, if not a century or more in the making. If it happens at all.