IGX

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 9:19 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 8:51 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 8:36 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 7:19 pm What good is a gun for home defense that isn't easy to grab?

Guns are normally stolen by burglars, who operate when you aren't at home or car. People who can't secure firearms when they aren't home probably shouldn't own them.

OK thanks for clarifying that I don't have Constitutionally-protected rights because "thieves". I was under the mistaken impression that locking something up in my house was a means of securing it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but your keyboard is spitting out tedious strawman nonsense. Plz check your settings.

You indicated that people whose homes are burgled and their guns stolen probably shouldn't own firearms. That's not a strawman, those are your words. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your own position? If that's your stance on victims of theft, I'd hate to hear what your thoughts are on victims of sex assault or bodily harm.

...people whose homes are burgled and their guns stolen probably shouldn't own firearms.

Now you’re making sense.

Has your home ever been robbed?

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 9:59 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 9:19 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 8:51 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 8:36 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 7:19 pm What good is a gun for home defense that isn't easy to grab?

Guns are normally stolen by burglars, who operate when you aren't at home or car. People who can't secure firearms when they aren't home probably shouldn't own them.

OK thanks for clarifying that I don't have Constitutionally-protected rights because "thieves". I was under the mistaken impression that locking something up in my house was a means of securing it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but your keyboard is spitting out tedious strawman nonsense. Plz check your settings.

You indicated that people whose homes are burgled and their guns stolen probably shouldn't own firearms. That's not a strawman, those are your words. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your own position? If that's your stance on victims of theft, I'd hate to hear what your thoughts are on victims of sex assault or bodily harm.

People who are severely depressed probably shouldn’t own firearms. People who won’t train with them probably shouldn’t own firearms. People who won’t secure their guns probably shouldn’t own firearms. The last pistol class I attended had about 25% people who probably shouldn’t own firearms.

None of that has anything to do with FatCat’s constitutional rights.

Basically, people who don't meet your selective criteria shouldn't own firearms. Got it, thanks.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 1:38 am

He'd use it if he had fingers and an opposable thumb.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 5:50 pmNope. Congress has prohibited funds for research advocating gun control since 1996.

Research all by itself doesn't "advocate". Congress has prohibited funds for research into gun deaths and guns as a possible health issue, period.

I used to have a gun in South Africa, 9mm para. The only instance I was about to shoot it to protect myself was when the security company sent the guard to check my property because of low battery alarm. I woke up by my dogs barking like crazy ( though not doing asnything else). I grabbed the pistol, went to the window and saw a black guy lurking in the shadows of my courtyard. I aimed the gun at him, though it would take serious action on his part for me to pull tbye trigger. Then I saw his identification signs, called out to him and that was it.

For self defence and home protection I don't think you need more than a hand gun.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 3:56 pm It's a little weird when people disparage "politicians" from doing something, as though the fact that they are politicians makes it silly. They're setting policy others can't.

For example, when adjacent states have a spread in drinking age, drunk driving deaths go up because more kids drive over to drink and kill somebody on their way home. Similarly, raising the drinking age to 21 reduced drunk driving deaths.

Drunk driving is a public health issue. An 18 year old's right to drink because he can both vote/serve is hypothetically fine, but people don't like having them crash into their cars/families. There's societal blowback people in the 70's/80's said "Enough of this shit." The gun equivalent seems to be on the table now.

UPDATE
There's a Progressive move afoot to lower the voting age to 16. It's being floated in several states & DC. Would it be "weird" to disparage this as a silly political power play vs. serious policy making?

The reality is that firearms are not a significant threat to public health. They are not even in the top ten:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrht ... 2.htm#tab2

Leading causes of death for Americans are:

1. Diseases of the heart.
2. Malignant neoplasms.
3. Chronic lower respiratory disease.
4. Cerebrovascular Disease (i.e., stroke).
5. Unintentional Injuries (mostly cars and drugs).
6. Alzheimer's Disease.
7. Diabetes mellitus.
8. Pneumonia and influenza.
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis (kidney disease).
10. Suicide.

In other words, smoking, junk food, sugar, drugs, alcohol, and cars are all far more significant sources of morbidity in Americans. If you really care about the safety of your fellow Americans, as opposed to pursuing a personal anti-gun agenda, then these are the areas which deserve your attention.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 6:43 pm The reality is that firearms are not a significant threat to public health. They are not even in the top ten:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrht ... 2.htm#tab2

Leading causes of death for Americans are:

1. Diseases of the heart.
2. Malignant neoplasms.
3. Chronic lower respiratory disease.
4. Cerebrovascular Disease (i.e., stroke).
5. Unintentional Injuries (mostly cars and drugs).
6. Alzheimer's Disease.
7. Diabetes mellitus.
8. Pneumonia and influenza.
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis (kidney disease).
10. Suicide.

In other words, smoking, junk food, sugar, drugs, alcohol, and cars are all far more significant sources of morbidity in Americans. If you really care about the safety of your fellow Americans, as opposed to pursuing a personal anti-gun agenda, then these are the areas which deserve your attention.

http://www.irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtop ... 00#p874600

nafod wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 6:49 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 6:43 pm The reality is that firearms are not a significant threat to public health. They are not even in the top ten:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrht ... 2.htm#tab2

Leading causes of death for Americans are:

1. Diseases of the heart.
2. Malignant neoplasms.
3. Chronic lower respiratory disease.
4. Cerebrovascular Disease (i.e., stroke).
5. Unintentional Injuries (mostly cars and drugs).
6. Alzheimer's Disease.
7. Diabetes mellitus.
8. Pneumonia and influenza.
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis (kidney disease).
10. Suicide.

In other words, smoking, junk food, sugar, drugs, alcohol, and cars are all far more significant sources of morbidity in Americans. If you really care about the safety of your fellow Americans, as opposed to pursuing a personal anti-gun agenda, then these are the areas which deserve your attention.

http://www.irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtop ... 00#p874600

nafod wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:15 pmEvery single one of the items in that list above have huge efforts underway, funded by both government and private, to reduce them as causes of death. Every.single.one. Tons of research on identifying and mitigating. Finding out the underlying causes. Etc. Some of them to the tune of billions of dollars.

Are you actually trying to make the point that there is no "huge effort underway" to reduce gun crime and the deaths which result? Because, friend, that would be foolish.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 6:43 pm The reality is that firearms are not a significant threat to public health. They are not even in the top ten:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrht ... 2.htm#tab2

Leading causes of death for Americans are:

1. Diseases of the heart.
2. Malignant neoplasms.
3. Chronic lower respiratory disease.
4. Cerebrovascular Disease (i.e., stroke).
5. Unintentional Injuries (mostly cars and drugs).
6. Alzheimer's Disease.
7. Diabetes mellitus.
8. Pneumonia and influenza.
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis (kidney disease).
10. Suicide.

In other words, smoking, junk food, sugar, drugs, alcohol, and cars are all far more significant sources of morbidity in Americans. If you really care about the safety of your fellow Americans, as opposed to pursuing a personal anti-gun agenda, then these are the areas which deserve your attention.

Fatty, my objection to your argument is that the list above is either bad luck or self-inflicted. Someone wants to smoke and get cancer - it's his right. Guns, on the other hand, endanger others. In this case general mortality statistics are not relevant to guns, but crime stats should be taken into accounts instead. Cars are public risk, and car related issues are heavily regulated, why shouldn't guns be?

Neither relative numbers should be used for illustration of importance IMO. Death from measles is very rare, yet every child is vaccinated (I only hope this thread does not turn into vaccination one!)

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 7:07 pm Are you actually trying to make the point that there is no "huge effort underway" to reduce gun crime and the deaths which result? Because, friend, that would be foolish.

Fatcat, not only is there no huge effort underway to understand and reduce gun violence, the US government is literally blocked by law from looking at the epidemiology associated with gun violence. Legislated ignorance. You can't fix what you can't understand. Google on the Dickey Amendment.

Friend, I posted about that previously in this thread:

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 5:50 pm

tough old man wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 5:46 pm are there any stats that show legal gun owners are an issue?

Nope. Congress has prohibited funds for research advocating gun control since 1996.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180955884/

However, I believe that you are incorrect regarding the larger issue of whether or not there are government initiatives to control and reduce gun violence. There are, in fact, quite a few laws, regulations, and agencies at the federal, state, and county level devoted to that very effort. Perhaps you have heard of the FBI, the BATF, the Center for Gun Policy Research, the state and local police, etc. ?

Sangoma wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 4:43 am Fatty, my objection to your argument is that the list above is either bad luck or self-inflicted. Someone wants to smoke and get cancer - it's his right. Guns, on the other hand, endanger others. In this case general mortality statistics are not relevant to guns, but crime stats should be taken into accounts instead. Cars are public risk, and car related issues are heavily regulated, why shouldn't guns be?

With regard to deaths by firearms in the US, fully 2/3 are self inflicted. You are invalidated by your own argument. However, I understand the sentiment behind it, and there are no easy answers to senseless gun violence. Most gun violence in the US is committed with handguns, which are heavily regulated, and by criminals, who do not reference laws with regard to their behavior.

The reality is that alcohol (88,000 dead annually in US), medical errors (250,000 dead annually in US), and environmental pollution (9 million globally) are all far more deadly and deserving of attention if your only goal is saving lives. If the real intention is to limit the rights of individuals and leave government (you know, the one led by Trump) as the sole arbiter of armed justice, then by all means continue to assail the Bill of Rights.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 7:27 pm Friend, I posted about that previously in this thread:

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 5:50 pm

tough old man wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 5:46 pm are there any stats that show legal gun owners are an issue?

Nope. Congress has prohibited funds for research advocating gun control since 1996.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180955884/

However, I believe that you are incorrect regarding the larger issue of whether or not there are government initiatives to control and reduce gun violence. There are, in fact, quite a few laws, regulations, and agencies at the federal, state, and county level devoted to that very effort. Perhaps you have heard of the FBI, the BATF, the Center for Gun Policy Research, the state and local police, etc. ?

Again, there are laws specifically designed to obstruct gaining knowledge on controlling and reducing gun violence. They aren't neutral on this, they are obstructive. They get in the way. Obvious efforts that could decrease gun violence are blocked. I can't think of an analogy in any of the other examples of hazards you gave.

Of the federal agencies the ATF has the main mission from law enforcement, and it has tight restrictions on data collection and sharing through law, and are for example prohibited from using a electronic database to gather data. Their 21st century database is a warehouse full of paper. By law.

More often than not the ATF has no one in charge, including right now. It is undermanned for its law enforcement responsibilities. It is continuously kneecapped in its mission. On purpose.

The Center for Gun Policy & Research you cited...want to bet on how much federal research dollars they get? The same as the CDC gets...zero. As opposed to all of the other examples of maladies you listed.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:44 pmall far more deadly and deserving of attention...

And they get it.

nafod wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:45 pmAgain, there are laws specifically designed to obstruct gaining knowledge on controlling and reducing gun violence. They aren't neutral on this, they are obstructive. They get in the way. Obvious efforts that could decrease gun violence are blocked. I can't think of an analogy in any of the other examples of hazards you gave.

I agree with you that the law is frankly foolish, but I disagree with the contention that gathering knowledge would allow legislators to control and reduce gun violence for the simple fact that they have no power to do so. Why not? Because, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

nafod wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:45 pmOf the federal agencies the ATF has the main mission from law enforcement, and it has tight restrictions on data collection and sharing through law, and are for example prohibited from using a electronic database to gather data. Their 21st century database is a warehouse full of paper. By law.

So you acknowledge that there are government programs devoted the regulation of firearms? Your argument is changing from "there isn't one" to "it's not done the right way".

nafod wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:45 pmMore often than not the ATF has no one in charge, including right now. It is undermanned for its law enforcement responsibilities. It is continuously kneecapped in its mission. On purpose.

After their performance in Waco they should have been disbanded, IMHO.

nafod wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:45 pmThe Center for Gun Policy & Research you cited...want to bet on how much federal research dollars they get? The same as the CDC gets...zero. As opposed to all of the other examples of maladies you listed.

I cited the center as an example of private entities. I provided other examples of federal, state, and local government agencies.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:55 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:45 pmAgain, there are laws specifically designed to obstruct gaining knowledge on controlling and reducing gun violence. They aren't neutral on this, they are obstructive. They get in the way. Obvious efforts that could decrease gun violence are blocked. I can't think of an analogy in any of the other examples of hazards you gave.

I agree with you that the law is frankly foolish, but I disagree with the contention that gathering knowledge would allow legislators to control and reduce gun violence for the simple fact that they have no power to do so. Why not? Because, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You seem to be citing this as though you don't know that your interpretation (leaving out the first clause) is fairly modern. But you do know that, right?

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 9:09 pm I agree with you that the law is frankly foolish, but I disagree with the contention that gathering knowledge would allow legislators to control and reduce gun violence for the simple fact that they have no power to do so. Why not? Because, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You seem to be citing this as though you don't know that your interpretation (leaving out the first clause) is fairly modern. But you do know that, right?

So what? It's the interpretation of the Supreme Court as of 2018.

You know you can't possibly predict in advance how a court would rule on every piece legislation that came before them.

I still don't see your point. The 2nd Amendment has been around forever and Americans are still keeping and bearing arms, present fantasies of universal disarmament aside. There's not going to be any meaningful controls on gun ownership in the USA and its a bad idea anyway.

nafod wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:45 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 7:27 pm Friend, I posted about that previously in this thread:

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 5:50 pm

tough old man wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 5:46 pm are there any stats that show legal gun owners are an issue?

Nope. Congress has prohibited funds for research advocating gun control since 1996.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180955884/

However, I believe that you are incorrect regarding the larger issue of whether or not there are government initiatives to control and reduce gun violence. There are, in fact, quite a few laws, regulations, and agencies at the federal, state, and county level devoted to that very effort. Perhaps you have heard of the FBI, the BATF, the Center for Gun Policy Research, the state and local police, etc. ?

Again, there are laws specifically designed to obstruct gaining knowledge on controlling and reducing gun violence. They aren't neutral on this, they are obstructive. They get in the way. Obvious efforts that could decrease gun violence are blocked. I can't think of an analogy in any of the other examples of hazards you gave.

There is nothing stopping this august board from contributing to the efforts to reduce gun violence.

I propose that all pharmacological data of mass shooters be submitted to the public record. What drugs are these shooters on, what dosage, and for how long? What do their medical records say about their violent and/or suicidal ideation?

I propose that there be joint committee hearings about failures of law enforcement to follow existing laws and legal prohibitions that prevent them from dealing with obviously demented individuals (see TX church shooter & Parkland shooter).

Talk of limiting any constitutional right in the tiniest degree should be a last resort, not a first move.