FA discovered packing

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Scott - see my post immediately above. Heller goes much farther than that statement. I believe the language is a few paragraphs after what you excerpted.

Just to follow up. On rereading, what the Heller opinion says, based on the Miller decision from ~80 years ago, is that the 2nd Amendment protects only guns that are in common use "at the time" (meaning at the time a regulation is enacted), and even that protection is not absolute.

 

[dmccormack]

Do you also find it unreasonable that people in the US cannot say own a nuclear weapon?

Common Law precedes the Constitution.

Common law recognizes proportional force. Nuclear weapons convey disproportionate power to one who can use his power to eliminate the freedom of others.

 

[denverpilot]

Really? So you do not even hold the DC Vs. Heller is a correct court decision?

Nope. Wasn't really a "decision", really. Was just a legal cop-out. See below.

That is the current law BTW. Should the FA be taking this to the SCOTUS to challenge all gun laws?

Up to her.

Do you also find it unreasonable that people in the US cannot say own a nuclear weapon?

AFAIK, I don't think you will be able to find a law on the books that specifically limits an individual's ability to own a nuclear weapon today.

There may be those who would interpret existing bomb law to apply, against owning certain "Classes" of explosives without a license would be illegal without a permit, but of course, a nuclear weapon technically isn't composed of primarily anything explosive.

Depending on design, you'll need a certain amount of explosives in the form of a very accurate shape-charge to start the nuclear chain-reaction. So you'd probably be in violation of explosives laws if you didn't have an explosives license.

I do believe you could find a law against individuals being allowed to refine nuclear material... (hunting for that one, could be wrong)...

And there's International treaties that limit which countries can own nuclear weapons (as if they care), and what they can do with them (again, as if they care... Etc. And only very indirectly would an individual care if they were breaking a treaty. (Numerous countries are in violation of the treaties today, so... it's really a "Who cares?")

You'll also find environmental laws galore about what to do to protect others from the radioactive materials involved. That'd probably be the majority of the lawbreaking, actually.

But... I haven't been able to find any specific law banning an individual from owning a nuclear weapon.

Nothing in the law books stopped Eagle Scout, David Hahn, from attempting to build a breeder reactor in his mom's back yard when he was 17:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

According to Wikipedia, he wasn't allowed to join the nuclear engineering side of the Navy after enlisting because he had already received the "lifetime" exposure limit to Thorium, according to sourced information at Wikipedia, and also according to Wikipedia he later enlisted in the Marines, but it says "[citation needed]" on that one. I hadn't looked up his story in a while.

Even more interesting in that story is that he was only charged with larceny, and not charged with anything else. He was stealing smoke detectors for their radioactive material when the cops figured out what he was doing with it at home and slapped the panic button bringing in a Federal NEST team.

The arguably smarter Thiago Olson is one of only 20 or so known amateurs to build their own fusion reactors. He did it when he was 15, in a basement.

http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2007-03/popsci-videoteen-builds-basement-nuclear-reactor

(Side-note: I love that Popular Science put this in their "DIY" section! LOL!)

Pretty nice machine work. It doesn't say if he did that work or if he paid for the parts. Interesting though.

A tiny reactor like this is quite a ways from where you'd need to go to fabricate a weapon, or even refine nuclear material, but it shows that someone with appropriate care and knowledge could easily be doing it right now, in a backyard or basement somewhere.

Laws have little effect in this arena, but the knowledge and skill level required does.

None of this means it would be smart to try to build or to obtain a weapon, however. Not at all. You'd probably disappear under the dark of night never to be heard from again, if you could somehow dig up your own material, refine it, and build a device with any significant yield, etc.

But, AFAIK... there's no law against it as of right now. And I'm pretty sure no matter how many laws your family said you DIDN'T break, you wouldn't be coming home very fast after being "detained". (Note: Not "arrested and charged with a crime".)

Anyway, this is a fun side-conversation to hijack the thread, but it doesn't really matter to me, as it's not one of the enumerated rights in the Constitution to own a nuclear bomb.

I suppose maybe you're defining it as "arms", but I'm willing to stop at so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Of course, there's a risk that the definition of WMD could change over time, so that's perhaps a slippery slope in-and-of itself.

How big is a "mass"? Does 5 directly killed people and a glow-in-the-dark shopping mall becoming a SuperFund site from a fizzled "dirty bomb" that was badly made -- count as "Mass" destruction? Who knows. I'm not planning on finding out in Court or otherwise.

As far as the court case about firearms goes, define "unusual" and "dangerous" when it comes to a weapon?

Under their so-called "decision", we could collectively decide tomorrow that your pocket knife (since a majority of people don't carry them anymore on a daily basis) is "unusual" and of course, it could cut someone, so it's "dangerous", and could be banned under the Court's "decision"...

In other words, they didn't really make a decision -- they wimped out and effectively left it up to the States, except for certain categories of "controlled" firearms.

Even some of those can be obtained with appropriate permits, such as machine guns. And if you're building the weapons for Uncle Sam, they typically allow the contractor to own/operate them, for testing purposes. There's a very nice sniper rifle company making a nice profit from sales of their gun, based in Idaho, who's allowed TV crews to film the accuracy of the weapon... (pretty damn incredible too, or scary if you're ever expecting to be on the receiving end of the incoming round.)

Can you own a tank? Yes. A fighter aircraft? Yes. Etc. Plenty of precedence of Americans owning military weapons privately. So what was your point? Or were you just interested in my opinion on the question?

My opinion is, that you can build all the nuclear weapons you want, Scott. I probably won't be able to visit you very often or talk to you on the Internet while you enjoy the lovely beaches of Cuba at Guantanamo Bay or the beautiful prairies of Kansas at Leavenworth. And maybe if you were super-psycho, you might get to visit us here in Colorado at SuperMax.

I am not making judgements on the why/how/law of such facilities, only pointing out that you'd probably be in one of them.

I could wave as I flew by in the 182. It'd be a crap-shoot as to which window was yours though, and I don't think I'll be circling the facility to make sure you see me.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...
As far as the court case about firearms goes, define "unusual" and "dangerous" when it comes to a weapon?

These things weren't discussed, as they weren't the issues under consideration.

But, it doesn't take too much imagination to guess at what would qualify as being "not in common use." Think about what you see when you go to your average gun range. Revolvers, semi-auto pistols with 7-15 shot capacities, shotguns, and hunting rifles.

What you don't see a lot of are things like military-pattern rifles (M1A's, AR's, etc.), things with large capacities, and even semi-auto hunting rifles. Keep in mind that a large number doesn't = common; we're dealing with percentage issues here. So, in my opinion, those kinds of things are not protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Particularly considering that the Heller decision referred to M-16's as being possible to ban under the decision.

Under their so-called "decision", we could collectively decide tomorrow that your pocket knife (since a majority of people don't carry them anymore on a daily basis) is "unusual" and of course, it could cut someone, so it's "dangerous", and could be banned under the Court's "decision"...

You're welcome to call it a "so-called 'decision'" if you want to, but the law it is. Reaffirmed law following a change in membership, at that.

As to what can be banned, the question is whether it's in "common useage" or not. A great deal of deference will be given to whatever legislature passes the law as to things that are in common useage. But, clearly a pocket knife would fall into that category.

That's not to say it couldn't be regulated. Just that it couldn't be outright banned. Of course, that's presuming it's some kind of weapon - I'd say it's more accurately classified as a tool.

In other words, they didn't really make a decision -- they wimped out and effectively left it up to the States, except for certain categories of "controlled" firearms.
....

They made a decision that D.C's regulations, and subsequently Chicago's, were/are invalid, because they absolutely prohibited ownership of something that was clearly in common use.

As for who's responsible for making decisions, that's up to whatever gov't wants to make them. Could be municipalities, could be counties, could be states, could be the Feds. It all depends on who wants to take the initiative.

Considering that Heller was decided in June 2008, though, and considering that there have been zero efforts anywhere to take advantage of the abrogation that it provides, I'd say that the Chicken Little concerns are misplaced. Worked out for gun manufacturers, though. If I'd been smart, I'd have bought a bunch of Winchester and Remington stock the day after the decision. I'd maxed out my credit cards buying guns, though.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Anyway, hope all of that is useful information for anyone who's interested in the subject.

 

[weilke]

Anyway, hope all of that is useful information for anyone who's interested in the subject.

Interesting points. I guess the way to ensure that high-cap magazines and semi-auto rifles remain available is to buy plenty of high-cap magazines and semi-auto rifles ----> 'in common use' ---> not bannable :wink2:

 

[steingar]

There are two sides to this coin. First, what Scott and I have been saying is quite true. Your odds of suffering gunfire increase dramatically (over three orders of magnitude) with gun ownership. If you want to deny this, you are simply denying reality.

However, out of the hundreds of millions of guns in circulation in America (at least one for every man woman and child) roughly thirty thousand wind up killing people (yeah, yeah, yeah, people kill people, guns just plant flowers or some such). Thus the odds are about in ten thousand that your gun will be involved in a fatal shooting. Not bad odds.

Flying an aircraft increases your chances of dying in an aircraft accident, and I'll bet the odds aren't anywhere near so favorable. So enjoy your guns. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't partake, I'm not particularly afraid of my neighbors.

 

[Anthony]

So enjoy your guns. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't partake, I'm not particularly afraid of my neighbors.

Thank you for respecting my right to own a gun. I will also respect your right not to.

I'm not afraid of my neighbors either. Well maybe the old guy down the street who cleans his M1 Garand on his front porch. Looks a lot like Clint Eastwood.

I lived in a very upscale neighborhood in Lone Tree, CO. Not bragging, but it seemed like a nice, safe place. A few months after I moved there my neighbor noticed my garage door still up. He said, your gonna close that, right? I said yeah, after I take out the trash. I asked why the concern. He said he forgot to close his one night and left the door to the house also unlocked. Two criminals came in at night through the garage and robbed them. They were even in their bedroom as they slept.

I keep all doors locked including the bedroom, but if I hear a bump in the night, Colonel Colt will allow me to be an equal or better than the thugs.

Glad you feel safe though.

 

[TMetzinger]

There are two sides to this coin. First, what Scott and I have been saying is quite true. Your odds of suffering gunfire increase dramatically (over three orders of magnitude) with gun ownership. If you want to deny this, you are simply denying reality.

Dang, and all the times I got shot were BEFORE I owned a gun!

 

[steingar]

Got robbed once myself. Forgot to lock that back door. Guy came in and nabbed my wallet. He was so fearsome that my little Moogie dog chased him off (assuming it was a he). I wouldn't have shot him for insured property anyway.

Like I said, enjoy your guns. The correlation between gun ownership and gun violence is a matter of fact, whether or not a gun makes you safer a matter of opinion. I myself side with Scott on this, I really don't think anyone's gun makes them one whit safer except perhaps those living in the wilderness who have to contend with wild animals. But admittedly, that's just my opinion.

 

[steingar]

Dang, and all the times I got shot were BEFORE I owned a gun!

Knowing you Tim, that hardly comes as a surprise.

 

[Everskyward]

I probably forget to close my garage door at night on the average of once a month.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

I lived in a very upscale neighborhood in Lone Tree, CO. Not bragging, but it seemed like a nice, safe place. A few months after I moved there my neighbor noticed my garage door still up. He said, your gonna close that, right? I said yeah, after I take out the trash. I asked why the concern. He said he forgot to close his one night and left the door to the house also unlocked. Two criminals came in at night through the garage and robbed them. They were even in their bedroom as they slept.

....

Had a similar incident occur in NC (in Winton-Vegas, actually, for Nick). Self-help can be a good thing, if you're capable of keeping your temper under check; it's even funnier when the situation has been resolved and the police ask if you're "narcotics and vice."

The funniest comment of the episode, though, was "get outta here, before he gets to you with that 9-iron." I always knew that golf had to have some kind of purpose.

 

[Anthony]

Had a similar incident occur in NC (in Winton-Vegas, actually, for Nick). Self-help can be a good thing, if you're capable of keeping your temper under check; it's even funnier when the situation has been resolved and the police ask if you're "narcotics and vice."

The funniest comment of the episode, though, was "get outta here, before he gets to you with that 9-iron." I always knew that golf had to have some kind of purpose.

When I was jsut starting out after grad school, I wasn't making much money and lived in a very bad, inner city neighborhood. Its all I could afford. The only guns I owned were a .22 Rifle, and a WWII bringback Walther PP that my Dad gave me. At the time both were back at my parents house, far away. The only thing I had for self defense was a baseball bat that I kept in the corner of my bedroom. I would actually here occassional gun shots outside some nights. I really wasn't scared, guess I was young, and invinceable at the time.

I thought too highly of my golf clubs to use them, but couldn't afford to play much golf either. Guess I could have tee'd off on the bad guys like John Candy did in Uncle Buck.

 

[dmccormack]

I lived in a very upscale neighborhood in Lone Tree, CO. Not bragging, but it seemed like a nice, safe place. A few months after I moved there my neighbor noticed my garage door still up. He said, your gonna close that, right? I said yeah, after I take out the trash. I asked why the concern. He said he forgot to close his one night and left the door to the house also unlocked. Two criminals came in at night through the garage and robbed them. They were even in their bedroom as they slept.

I keep all doors locked including the bedroom, but if I hear a bump in the night, Colonel Colt will allow me to be an equal or better than the thugs.

Glad you feel safe though.

We had the same situation 8 years ago. Moved in, found locks on everything. Met local guy, said, "Lots of robberies around here. You'd better keep everything locked up."

Chased one poacher of the property, then set up pistol and skeet range. Lots of shooting. No tresspassers. Interesting correlation.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Steingar: thanks for the well-though-out and balanced post. I love the arguments that say if one owns a gun they are more likely to be shot. Of course, if one owns a car, they are more likely to be in a car accident, etc.

Still, there is merit to the statement. My last tour in RVN, we lost more folks to accidents than enemy fire. Second tour had fewer infantry battles as we were pulling American troops out of combat roles as we negotiated a peace settlement. We mostly had guys in their late teens and early 20s and imagine the risk associated with giving all your high school friends an automatic weapon with which to walk around. Still, try taking those weapons away in a combat zone, even if in a rear area. Not easy. Most would accept the risk of an accident over not being able to defend themselves if bad guys came through the wire.

As much as we lectured about safety and controlled the issue of weapons, the accidents still occurred and even one was too many. If you have time for one short story:

You may or may not remember, at the end of the RVN war, officers were getting fragged: that is, if someone was unhappy with an officer, they would through a grenade in their tent, hooch or whatever. Bye bye bad officer and very difficult to trace. Not a lot of incidents, but enough to frighten many folks and in the typical reaction to such events, it was ordered that at the end of missions, grenades would be recovered, repacked and locked up so folks weren't freely walking around with them.

So, we then had accidents where folks would return from a mission and a grenade would go off while they removed it from their web gear and the person recovering it was trying to repack it.

On one memorable occasion in an aviation unit I was in, we set up a parapit made of sandbags. As troops departed helicopters, they would loosely place their grenades in an ammo box. Our folks would then take the ammo boxes full of grenades to the parapit and place them back in the cylindrical individual containers they had originally been packed in; fill up a box and return it to a locked conex container.

One would think, folks would understand why the parapit was there! One day, four guys were in the parapit and when one pulled a loose grenade out of the box, the pin came out and the spoon popped off! Three quick thinking folks jumped out of the parapit for protection: the last fella that had the grenade in his hand, then, threw the grenade outside the pit (of course, he was supposed to leave in inside and jump out with the others). The result was three folks wounded: one pretty badly and several helicopters in the immediate area downed because of being hit with grenade fragments.

Lesson learned: one has to explain to infantry guys even the simplest concepts to assure common understanding <g>

I guess one could say they are more likely to be hurt by a grenade if they have one <g>

Best,

Dave

 

[steingar]

Steingar: thanks for the well-though-out and balanced post. I love the arguments that say if one owns a gun they are more likely to be shot. Of course, if one owns a car, they are more likely to be in a car accident, etc.

There is a lot more to it than that though. Lets say that the majority of gun deaths were crazy people going out and shooting strangers. You can bet that thirty thousand deaths a year of folks who were just minding their own business would be enough to cause widespread anti-gun sentiment. If all you ever heard about guns was the mother and her kids gunned down, you'd start to think of them as dangerous, just like people think of light aircraft. There would be far more momentum for anti-gun legislation, and I doubt the second amendment would come close to keeping it all at bay. And if folks felt threatened enough, amendments can be repealed.

In a twisted way, I am grateful that most of the gun violence is restricted to the gun community. I don't want to see anyone's freedom taken away.

 

[ScottM]

I lived in a very upscale neighborhood in Lone Tree, CO. Not bragging, but it seemed like a nice, safe place. A few months after I moved there my neighbor noticed my garage door still up. He said, your gonna close that, right? I said yeah, after I take out the trash. I asked why the concern. He said he forgot to close his one night and left the door to the house also unlocked. Two criminals came in at night through the garage and robbed them. They were even in their bedroom as they slept.

I keep all doors locked including the bedroom, but if I hear a bump in the night, Colonel Colt will allow me to be an equal or better than the thugs.

Glad you feel safe though.

One night I came home from work, popped the trunk to get my computer bag, got out of the car walked to the mailbox, got the mail went inside. I left the computer bag in the trunk and the garage door open. A couple of guys cruising the neighborhood saw the open garage door and took it upon themselves to try and rob me. When I heard a car pull into my drive I realized the door was open and hit the button to close it. They ran away. Not sure what a gun would have accomplished in that situation. Most robberies are crime of opportunity not evil bad guys planning on coming in a killing the owners before taking their belongings.

 

[Everskyward]

The trouble with all of you guys is that you live in upscale neighborhoods where thieves think there is something worthy of stealing.

 

[steingar]

My neighborhood upscale?

 

[Everskyward]

My neighborhood upscale?

It was just a theory.

If I was going to break into someone's house to steal something of value it wouldn't be in a neighborhood full of shacks.

 

[denverpilot]

Flying an aircraft increases your chances of dying in an aircraft accident, and I'll bet the odds aren't anywhere near so favorable. So enjoy your guns. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't partake, I'm not particularly afraid of my neighbors.

I'm not either. But I'm also not afraid of having very many in-flight engine failures in a lifespan, but I train for those all the time.

So far, saw the aftermath of one druggie blowing a girl's head off at an ATM in Chicago about 5 minutes after it happened, and some "magazine sales" company for ex-cons dropped a guy off in our neighborhood who attempted to kill the neighbor lady who was 85 years old when she said something that ticked him off at the front door. (Probably along the lines of what any 85 year old says... "Get off my porch!")

The guy wasn't too bright, ran out the back of the house and then tried to make himself inconspicuous roaming the neighborhood for hours in a red shirt and tie. Once the neighbor's daughter came home and found her mom, he was picked up in about 10 minutes, walking around the parking lot of the strip mall across the main street near us, and I'm sure he was hoping his ride would show up early.

A number of us gave police reports that we'd seen him in the 'hood, and thought he was acting frustrated and weird at our doors... and if he hadn't pushed the 85 year old lady back into the house, my across-and-up-one neighbor might have noticed what was going on out of his front windows. We do look out for one-another, but inside your front door, we can't see...

(Frankly we all had a discussion with the neighbor about just not bothering to answer the door during the day... not enough of us around, and too much chance of someone taking advantage of her. She wholeheartedly agreed and her daughter thanked us all for helping her get the message through.)

Anyway, our ex-con "Winner" was convicted of Attempted Murder, as a multiple-offender, and also got extra time for attacking an elderly person under those "new" laws. He won't be out of jail or eligible for parole for a long, long time. The neighbor suffered a broken back and neck, and was probably less than a centimeter of being killed by a stranger in her own front room, at 85.

I'm not saying that she's willing or capable of carrying a firearm herself, nor that she should... but just giving the background of the crazy crap that goes down around and near me that keeps me quietly happy to own firearms...

You see... this story happened in the 3rd safest city in Colorado, right next door to my house. My grandfather had an unknown meth-lab house pop up two houses back from him on the street behind his -- in another town here in Denver... unbeknownst to him until the SWAT team, Hazmat, and the Bomb Squad all showed up one night.

And dad's had some wacky stuff too. He seems to attract the wild animals. Literally. All sorts.

Grandma was held at gunpoint at least once in her job role working for a State Food Stamp office in the 70s/80s.

Grandpa and Grandma are no longer here with us in body, but we all seem to attract crap like this in my family... so I'd rather be prepared than be victimized if it ever wanders up to my front door.

Everyone's different.

 

[steingar]

So far, saw the aftermath of one druggie blowing a girl's head off at an ATM in Chicago...Everyone's different.

While these things do happen, records collected year in and year out show that the vast majority of murders (including those committed with firearms) take place between people who know each other, and not random evildoers trying to invade our homes.

 

[weilke]

It was just a theory.

If I was going to break into someone's house to steal something of value it wouldn't be in a neighborhood full of shacks.

Well, for one reason or another, those are the neighborhoods with the highest rates of property crimes. 'Folks ins shacks' often dont have bank accounts and either work cash-jobs or convert their paychecks into cash at Safeway or Walmart. Burglars dont look for millions, they look for the next fix. A game-console that is easily convertable to cash is worth more than a Ming dynasty vase.

 

[denverpilot]

While these things do happen, records collected year in and year out show that the vast majority of murders (including those committed with firearms) take place between people who know each other, and not random evildoers trying to invade our homes.

The most likely scenario where carrying would be useful in recent years, is in getting caught in a situation in a public setting where a wack-job shows up and starts shooting, judging by the news lately. But you do have to be the sort who'd not hesitate to shoot to protect others.

And yep, those are almost always crimes of an angry person at someone in the public place... or sometimes just a nut-job driven there by the media...

Churches seem to be quite popular these days around here for public rampages...

http://themoderatevoice.com/16434/n...-security-guard-shoots-gunman-dead-at-church/

And of course, we're the home of Columbine (which is 10 minutes from my house).

Police Departments changed their tactics dramatically and won't be standing around outside hiding behind fire trucks while everyone gets shot inside at schools anymore after that one, it changed school "hostage" situation tactics forever.

(No offense to those who did... they did as they were trained in "hostage" situations back then. There's full reports of what went right and what went wrong there done by pros, I won't go into them here.)

If someone's carrying in the victim group, these things are typically over, sooner. Maybe not without loss of life, but less. The person carrying, typically follows their training, and takes out the lunatic.

(See above, the church had an armed security guard who took out the gunman in one of those incidents that week in 2007. And think about that one for a minute... churches need armed gun-carrying security guards. Churches. Interesting, isn't it? Isn't exactly my grandfather's country anymore, is it?)

The other super-high (statistically) shooting in public scenario right now is bank robberies in this economy.

Lots of big shootouts between cops and robbers out here in recent years, in motion, and lots of potential innocent bystanders at risk to be killed.

http://digpicphoto.com/shootout.htm

That was a "Bonnie and Clyde" go out with a bang kinda thing that we had here not all that long ago, about 1/2 mile from my work office.

The couple was unemployed and decided to go out with a bank robbery and a wild car chase in broad daylight. It wasn't about the money. They were looking to be shot to death by the cops. They definitely got their wish. Too many movies for them, I guess.

 

[weilke]

There are two sides to this coin. First, what Scott and I have been saying is quite true. Your odds of suffering gunfire increase dramatically (over three orders of magnitude) with gun ownership. If you want to deny this, you are simply denying reality.

Correlation doesn't proove causation.

Guns don't creep out of your safe at night, load themselves and shoot you in your sleep. Doing dumb-s### with guns may get you or yours killed.

Plenty of biased research out there when it comes to the gun issue. Recently, I saw a study that looked at all the bodies that came into the county morgue in one metro area and counted how many of them carried a gun while they were getting killed. The conclusion was 'carrying a gun increases your odds of getting killed during an assault'. No differentiation as to how many of those 'victims' were perpetrators of a crime at the time they were killed, how many carried their guns legally etc.

 

[denverpilot]

Correlation doesn't prove causation.

My favorite quote for that is: "100% of the people who are dead today were alive yesterday."

Therefore, being alive is extremely dangerous as it always leads to death. And we should ask the government to outlaw life, in order to make us all safe from its effects.

I shouldn't give them ideas...

 

[weilke]

(See above, the church had an armed security guard who took out the gunman in one of those incidents that week in 2007. And think about that one for a minute... churches need armed gun-carrying security guards. Churches. Interesting, isn't it? Isn't exactly my grandfather's country anymore, is it?)

I am glad to see that finally someone has his facts right. The lady who ended the New Life Church rampage is often portrayed as this housewife who happened to carry while in church. In reality, she had done 5 years with Minneapolis police and worked as correctional officer in Colorado at the time. Functioning as a plainclothes armed security guard was her 'mission' in that church, just as counting the collection proceeds, being an usher or changing the lightbulbs would be for someone else.

 

[NC Pilot]

Correlation doesn't prove causation.

No differentiation as to how many of those 'victims' were perpetrators of a crime at the time they were killed, how many carried their guns legally etc.

Exactly.

 

[weilke]

Exactly.

Well, you have been guilty of that often enough with the claim that 'shall issue' concealed carry 'reduces crime' :wink2: .

 

[Anthony]

Exactly.

A man of few words, just like John Moses Browning.

God made man, Colonel Colt made them equal.

 

[Everskyward]

Well, for one reason or another, those are the neighborhoods with the highest rates of property crimes. 'Folks ins shacks' often dont have bank accounts and either work cash-jobs or convert their paychecks into cash at Safeway or Walmart. Burglars dont look for millions, they look for the next fix. A game-console that is easily convertable to cash is worth more than a Ming dynasty vase.

Never mind. I forgot you can't joke around in a thread about guns around here. Oh well, I don't have either a game console or a Ming dynasty vase to worry about anyway.

 

[Anthony]

Never mind. I forgot you can't joke around in a thread about guns around here. Oh well, I don't have either a game console or a Ming dynasty vase to worry about anyway.

Oh, we all just need to lighten up Mari. You are right.

 

[steingar]

Correlation doesn't prove causation.

The CDC collects data. Data is neither conservative nor liberal, not Republican or Democrat. It never lies. Ever.

The data clearly shows that the vast majority of gunshot victims either owned the weapon or was friend or family to the person who did. This is based on data collected over many years, and has never deviated in this regard since people began collecting it.

Only an idiot or someone willfully blinded to the truth would claim random correlation. It is a FACT that people who heroically shoot agents of evil are in the extreme minority. You will find them out there, but they do not represent the lion's share of shooters. In the same vein, you will find those shot in the course of robberies or home invasions to be in an extreme minority. In the slight majority are those who for whatever reason point the weapon and themselves and pull the trigger. The vast majority of the rest are those who kill those close to them.

I have not advocated any form of gun control, and would be staunchly resistant to the implementation of such. But I think it stinks that gun advocates loudly smear scientists who competently do their jobs of impassionately collecting data and making very logical conclusions. Research isn't automatically bad or biased just because you don't like the conclusions.

 

[dmccormack]

Only an idiot or someone willfully blinded to the truth would claim random correlation. It is a FACT that people who heroically shoot agents of evil are in the extreme minority. You will find them out there, but they do not represent the lion's share of shooters. In the same vein, you will find those shot in the course of robberies or home invasions to be in an extreme minority. In the slight majority are those who for whatever reason point the weapon and themselves and pull the trigger. The vast majority of the rest are those who kill those close to them.

How many home invasions were prevented or deterred by the presence of a firearm?

Where's that statistic?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm not either. But I'm also not afraid of having very many in-flight engine failures in a lifespan, but I train for those all the time.

I think what Michael is trying to tell you is that if you get rid of your engine and just fly gliders, you won't need to worry about, or train for, engine failures any more.

 

[TMetzinger]

The CDC collects data. Data is neither conservative nor liberal, not Republican or Democrat. It never lies. Ever.

The data clearly shows that the vast majority of gunshot victims either owned the weapon or was friend or family to the person who did. This is based on data collected over many years, and has never deviated in this regard since people began collecting it.

Only an idiot or someone willfully blinded to the truth would claim random correlation. It is a FACT that people who heroically shoot agents of evil are in the extreme minority. You will find them out there, but they do not represent the lion's share of shooters. In the same vein, you will find those shot in the course of robberies or home invasions to be in an extreme minority. In the slight majority are those who for whatever reason point the weapon and themselves and pull the trigger. The vast majority of the rest are those who kill those close to them.

I have not advocated any form of gun control, and would be staunchly resistant to the implementation of such. But I think it stinks that gun advocates loudly smear scientists who competently do their jobs of impassionately collecting data and making very logical conclusions. Research isn't automatically bad or biased just because you don't like the conclusions.

Data != Conclusions

I have no arguments with the data. But one CAN take exception to:

• Whether the data collected is complete enough to support the conclusion being drawn.
• Whether the conclusion is relevant to the question being discussed.

Example - when we talk about the GA fatal accident rate... that is a GUESS because nobody really knows how many hours are flown by the fleet every year, because there's no requirement to collect that data. I'm not saying the guess is bad, but it's a guess, and not a fact. Completely different than the accident rate for operations that are required to collect and maintain that data.

 

[steingar]

How many home invasions were prevented or deterred by the presence of a firearm?

Where's that statistic?

I cannot quote uncollecable statistics. If I had to guess, not even one. Since a criminal does not know which household has weapons, they are obviously not stopped by their secret presence. You assume criminals act with intelligence. All the LEOs of my acquaintance have told me otherwise.

 

[steingar]

Data != Conclusions

I have no arguments with the data. But one CAN take exception to:

• Whether the data collected is complete enough to support the conclusion being drawn.

• 
  
  I have quoted the most complete and comprehensive data set available to anyone on firearm deaths in the US. If that is insufficient, then there is no data set that will convince the gun advocates in this thread. In other words, your minds are made up despite the facts. Or, as another far more eloquent chap has said:
  
  
  

 

[dmccormack]

I cannot quote uncollecable statistics. If I had to guess, not even one. Since a criminal does not know which household has weapons, they are obviously not stopped by their secret presence. You assume criminals act with intelligence. All the LEOs of my acquaintance have told me otherwise.

No kidding. Criminals look for an easy mark.

"That guy has guns..." has likely crossed the mind of more than one potential felon, don'tchya think?