MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Monday, September 1, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 70.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Re: The gun thread

Postby johnfajardohenry » Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:10 pm

Perhaps we need to abandon the drug war. Legalize all recreational drugs for adults. Grass, speed, coke, heroin etc.

It would not stop future Sandy Hooks but it would go a long long way to reducing the number of gun killings.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:44 pm

Another informative debate:

Point:
“If it’s crazy to call for putting police in and securing our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy,” LaPierre told NBC’s David Gregory.


Counterpoint:
Wayne LaPierre, you're crazy.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:02 pm

This is just so sad. Another armed and trained officer gunned down while on duty.

http://news.yahoo.com/husband-slain-wis ... 53161.html
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3105
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:19 pm

NPR reported she had told a co worker her husband had earlier held a gun to her head.

Nothing was done (possibly holding a gun to someone's head isn't a chargeable offense? I don't know). But we have another victim of domestic violence here, it seems, and her husband was ex-military with two tours in combat zones and serious injuries. It goes without saying that history could raise questions regarding PTSD or other mental distress. Still, he got to keep a gun. Is this wise -- in terms of domestic violence or mental health status -- with regard to gun permitting?

And so did his wife keep a gun, I suppose. She likely had one on her when she died. Lots of good that did.

I can't believe people who think we're on the right track aren't beginning to question. The alternatives to not questioning are:

-- blame the victim;

-- argue the person facing charges hadn't done anything specifically wrong so he had every right to keep his guns, and his personal history bears no relationship to mental status until he actually commits a crime;

-- argue this is an aberration, even though we had another domestic abuse mass shooting, also preceded by earlier abuse, in the same part of the state just a few months ago;

-- argue everyone needs to get more armed, even though this particular victim already WAS armed;

-- claim our second amendment rights are more important than the consequences of not placing legal limitations on the second amendment, as we have done with other amendments.

Look. I don't know what legislation should be proposed. But are we not starting to see a pattern here? And do we not have the obligation to use that information in some way to prevent the pattern from replicating?
Last edited by snoqueen on Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11435
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:31 pm

I argue now that the 2nd was intended to provide for the safety and security of the people, whether as an individual or as a whole.

Using today's modified SCOTUS definition devoid of the militia precursor, this meant the right to own arms in colonial times to provide for your own safety and security. Today, to meet original intent, it would also be the right to regulate easy access and to who exactly can own arms... to provide for the safety and security of the people.

This should help clarify the inclusion of the militia precursor... From The Articles of Confederation: http://www.constitution.org/cons/usa-conf.htm
... but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.


... Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777.
It seems obvious that the 2nd is an abbreviated version of the 6th article of confederation
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3105
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:02 pm

This seems reasonable.

Sheriff Arpaio says he's ready to provide armed assistance at schools in the valley. The sheriff says he's ready to start this program within a week.
He said he wants to put posse members near schools, not inside them. He's focusing on roughly 50 schools in cities that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has jurisdiction over.
Schools in places like Cave Creek, Fountain Hills, and Litchfield Park may soon see some of the Sheriff Arpaio's posse members patrolling nearby.


Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2 ... z2GNmTIkZv


And seriously, what are they going to do? Will they come a runnin' with pistols blazing at the first sign of an incident. Welcome to the wild west. It's like 1850 all over again. Giddy up.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4817
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby johnfajardohenry » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:12 pm

Formatting is a bit funky here but you can find the table at
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance ... taltab.cfm

Key takeaway is that the number of victims dropped from 1.2mm to 0.35mm in 16 years.

Nonfatal firearm incidents and victims, 1993-2009

Firearm Firearm
Incidents Victims
1993 1,054,820 1,248,250 5.9 11 %
1994 1,060,800 1,286,860 6.0 11
1995 902,680 1,050,900 4.9 10
1996 845,220 989,930 4.6 10
1997 680,900 795,560 3.6 9
1998 557,200 670,480 3.0 8
1999 457,150 562,870 2.5 7
2000 428,670 533,470 2.4 7
2001 467,880 524,030 2.3 9
2002 353,880 430,930 1.9 7
2003 366,840 449,150 1.9 7
2004 280,890 331,630 1.4 6
2005 416,940 474,110 1.9 9
2006*
2007 348,910 394,580 1.6 7
2008 303,880 343,550 1.4 7
2009 326,090 352,810 1.4 8
Source: Criminal Victimization, 2009.
*Victimization rate trends excludes NCVS estimates for 2006 because of methodological inconsistencies between the data for that year and the data for other years. Changes to the NCVS and their impact upon the survey's estimates in 2006 are discussed in the Criminal Victimization, 2006 Technical Notes.
Source: National Crime Victimization Survey

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:22 pm

The power of the NRA lobby even extends to health care reform.

The words were tucked deep into the sprawling text of President Obama’s signature health-care overhaul. Under the headline “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights” was a brief provision restricting the ability of doctors to gather data about their patients’ gun use — a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health.

The language, pushed by the National Rifle Association in the final weeks of the 2010 debate over health care and discovered only in recent days by some lawmakers and medical groups, is drawing criticism in the wake of this month’s schoolhouse massacre of 20 children and six educators in Newtown, Conn. Some public health advocates, worried that the measure will hinder research and medical care, are calling on the White House to amend the language as it prepares to launch a gun-control initiative in January.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19774
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:56 pm

The language, pushed by the National Rifle Association in the final weeks of the 2010 debate over health care and discovered only in recent days by some lawmakers and medical groups


Always good to pass laws that no one understands. NRA may have pushed the language but the people who pushed the whole bill through have to take some of the blame for this type of stupidity.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2358
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby johnfajardohenry » Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:44 pm

Let us do a thought experiment:

Suppose that the Government, specifically the president, had information that the Canadians (or Chinese, Mexicans, Swiss. Whoever you like) were going to carry out a full scale invasion of the US in 2016.

By that time they will have accumulated an army 4 times the size of ours and our main defense will need to be a citizenry armed with military grade rifles.

There are two ways Obie could go on this:

He could go on TV and say "To arms, to arms! The Canadians are coming" He could tell every citizen to arm themselves and stock up on ammo.

How many people would pay attention? Probably not many, they would see him as a crackpot.

On the other hand, he can say "I am going to start taking away your weapons and ESPECIALLY the military grade ones."

Now how many people would pay attention? We would see just what we are seeing now. People jamming gun stores and gun shows buying up every firearm and bullet that they can. So much that most manufacturers are on backorder until June or beyond.

We would see gun ranges packed day and night with people who never thought about a gun now wanting to learn how to use one.

If he wanted to make sure we had a well armed citizenry Obie is going about it in just about the best possible way.

So what existential threat could possibly be on our horizon? Is Obie really worried about the US being invaded?

Or does he just want us to be to be like the Swiss, armed to the teeth and prepared for anything. Whoever the threat is will see this and not even try to invade.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:55 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:Whoever the threat is will see this and not even try to invade.


Or they could just launch bombs on us possibly with nuclear chemicals. Or they could invade us like people did in the 1800's.

johnfajardohenry wrote:On the other hand, he can say "I am going to start taking away your weapons and ESPECIALLY the military grade ones."


So now you're saying it's a conspiracy because we're going to be invaded?
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4817
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby johnfajardohenry » Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:42 am

Stebben,

First, you do agree that gun and ammo sales have gone through the roof in the past year and especially in the past month? I just read this AM that they are up 19% for 2012 and 39% for December.

Second, would you agree that President Obie's current and prospective policies, real or perceived, are the reason for this?

That will at least give us a starting point for discussion

Stebben84 wrote:Or they could just launch bombs on us possibly with nuclear chemicals. Or they could invade us like people did in the 1800's.


I really doubt that anyone is going to invade the US. I don't think it could be done other than via Canada or Mexico. I don't think even then it would be possible. The US is just too big and populous.

No idea what you mean by nuclear chemicals. Is this something new?

I suspect that if we did get in a war with anyone, which I don't foresee, it would be with nuclear weapons and/or economic or cyber weapons. Civilian arms will do no good protecting against that.

On the other hand, the civilian population IS arming at an an amazing rate. This on top of already being historically well armed to start with.

Obie is not a stupid man. He has to realize that he is causing this arming of the civilian population.

So if it is not against some foreign invasion, what is he arming us against?

The alternatives to foreign invasion are even more bizarre and harder to believe. Civil war between sections of the US? State secession? Collapse of the Federal government?

Far more bizare than those is one tinfoil hat theory I have seen in several places. Obie is trying to trigger and internal rebellion which he can then put down with the military, impose nationwide martial law and complete the transformation to a fascist socialist single state.

I do not believe any of these theories. None of them make any sense at all. But I have been thinking about it and am at a complete loss to understand why Obie is so intent on a heavily armed citizenry. I do not oppose a heavily armed citizenry, I support it. More guns = less crime, "An armed society is a polite society" and all that.

I just can't understand why Obie would.

Any suggestions why Obie is triggering this arms race?

So now you're saying it's a conspiracy because we're going to be invaded?


I don't think "conspiracy" is the word here. I think it is government policy to arm the citizenry. I do not understand why.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Ducatista » Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:18 am

johnfajardohenry wrote:President Obie's ... Obie ... Obie ... Obie ... Obie ... Obie...

Obie, Demmies... what's with the infantile phrasing? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm really wondering. You must know it makes you sound like an idiot, so why indulge?
Ducatista
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4337
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:31 pm
Location: 53703

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:29 am

Ducatista wrote:
johnfajardohenry wrote:President Obie's ... Obie ... Obie ... Obie ... Obie ... Obie...

Obie, Demmies... what's with the infantile phrasing? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm really wondering. You must know it makes you sound like an idiot, so why indulge?


You will also note that this same infantile phrasing isn't used for the other side of the aisle. What would it be? Repubbie, Johnie, Mitchie, Paulie. Oh, it's so cute and effective, isn't it?
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4817
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby johnfajardohenry » Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:44 am

Stebben84 wrote:You will also note that this same infantile phrasing isn't used for the other side of the aisle. What would it be? Repubbie, Johnie, Mitchie, Paulie. Oh, it's so cute and effective, isn't it?



I've been using "repo" here pretty consistently all along to refer to republicans. I've been using it pretty consistently everywhere else for at least 6-8 years. Ditto demmie.

Both repo and demmie as well as Obie are intended as signs of disrespect. I start out with the attitude that any politician of any party is a shithead until they demonstrate otherwise. Few do.

A pox on all of them.

Let President Obie bring the whole thing down and we can start afresh.

That is why I supported Obie for President in 2012. I sort of supported him in 2008 for the same reasons though I did have mixed feelings. Sarah Palin's presence made me somewhat sympathetic to the repo ticket.

I have not regretted my support for a moment. He seems to be proceeding as I expected. I particularly like the way he is arming the citizenry. Perhaps not his intention but it is certainly the result of his policies and prospective policies. Doesn't matter whether those policies are real or just perceived. The result is the same.

Gun sales up 39% in December.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ned Flanders and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar