Why are ignoring the Constitution? Is it worthless, or should it be taken seriously? The Constitution states that general welfare of the public is a right, and rights must be protected.
IS it your intent to trump 2A with general welfare? Heavy regulation invoking general welfare? I dangerous way to go about policy and individual rights not granted by government.
one thing I do find Ironic is some what to make it illegal to wear bullet proof clothing or drive bullet proof cars unless you are a gov entity
Actually, I'm starting to think that the Second Amendment is becoming increasingly unconstitutional as firearms become more dangerous. If somebody can take out a crowd of 60 people in 60 seconds with an AR or AK, then that seems to be a public safety issue. In the future, when somebody can take out 100 people in 60 seconds, then 1,000 people, I hope the gun advocates will come to their senses.
Correct. So why are you ignoring the question about the Bill of Rights? I could lower myself and play your game of "Why are <you> ignoring the Constitution? Is it worthless, or should it be taken seriously?" but that would be wrong. Let me help you get started: http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
I believe you are being honest. I also believe that some elected officials have your mindset as well. So can I presume you are an elitist only wanting public officials authorized to have weapons?
But you can interpret them to say anything you want them to say if they do not have all the facts to clarify the distortions. Of course that is the point to most statistical information interpretations. Just enough truth to allow them to be distorted to pursue a particular agenda.
People don't realize they were basically demands from couple of states and its people in order for them to ratify the Constitution. Without that promise it would have never been ratified.
And protecting our civil liberties is general welfare of the public. - - - Updated - - - And it is this line of thinking that make II Amendment all the more important.
Just replying to the question that was presented, namely: And the answer is no, but I have heard of 7 or 8 people being hacked to death. Also, 8 of the people killed in Norway were killed by a bomb. If he had tried that at an American summer resort, the death toll would have been less. Somebody would have been armed and stopped it.
No, it's quoted because it is true. Statistics do not tell you what will happen to an individual. If you think otherwise, you need to take more statistics.
The Kellerman study quoted has been pretty much shown to be inaccurate. If the effects of illicit drug use and household member ever arrested are taken out, the risk of a gun in the house goes down--from being a 2.7x factor to being a . He also found in that study that the use of illicit drugs increases your chances of someone being murdered by about 5.7 times, which is an effect size of over double what the effect of the presence of a gun in a home. As I said before, as I'm not involved in illegal drug use, nor am I or any family member involved in criminal activities, I'm not too concerned about the guns in my home causing any of us to be killed. http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html
Evidence that he was allowed to keep his guns? I don't buy it. He was a convicted felon before he shot his son 13 yrs ago, and wasn't allowed to have guns then. That is the main thing he was charged with at that time. I haven't found a single article that says anything about where he got his guns.
yes but not 77:1, apart from Jet li of course but hes a hong kong legend. Point now appears that due to the amount off ppl replying to this ratio equation, going over the same failed original response means this could be onto something. something like, guns give psychopaths unrivaled power. Yo! thats the americn dream right..
One interesting point to be made. The Spirit family had a lot of drug related problems. The grandfather had been in prison on drug dealing charges, which is why he ended up being imprisoned again for shooting his son years ago. The mother (of the 6 kids) was on probation for drug related charges, and two of the fathers of the grandkids are in prison. I feel sorry for those kids. They never had a chance living in that drug addled dysfunctional household.
Elitists are people who try to walk around restaurants with loaded rifles. Why? Just because! People have the right to life. This includes not getting shot. It doesn't seem as if his guns were taken away.
I asked you a specific question. If you do not want to answer fine, but please do not blow smoke with such a ignorant reply.
I didn't look at every post in this OP, but I traced back this little piece of it. I don't see any references from you about this, just the single blanket statement I responded to. If you have references - real references, not articles by second source media like a newspaper or blog - then lets see them. And suicides are NOT part of the equation. Suicide is not dependent upon access to a firearm. Once a person decides to commit suicide, then a firearm is the first choice of method, but lack of a firearm does not remove the motivation for suicide. Australia is a prime example. After the gun bans went into place in 1996, contrary to claimed expectations the suicide trend was unaffected. The stat banners always give is that suicide by firearm decreased - and thats true. But total suicide was unaffected, people just switched from a firearm to equally lethal methods such as hanging and poison. Banners add suicide to firearm statistics to make their case look better, but its wrong and its a lie.
Outlawing firearms and descending them to the Black Market wouldn't stop criminals from going on mass shooting sprees. Additionally, there are more overall stabbing deaths (on a global level) than there are homicidal gun deaths. 90%+ mass shootings have happened in gun-free zones, where law abiding citizens were unable to defend themselves with their own firearms.
But you see, Spirit DIDN'T use "poison, sleeping pills and setting the house on fire, driving entire family into a head on with a cement truck, etc, etc, etc". HE USED A GUN. No "ifs" about the actual truth of the article. Throw all the "ifs" at me you'd like. "Ifs" don't happen. But I see you and Nator both used the hypothetical and imaginary "if" to promote your agenda. I didn't need to because I only needed the reality of the events.
Of course a gun doesn't remove the motivation for suicide. It merely makes it easier and more certain than say a drug overdose or cutting oneself. But as far as gun violence is concerned, suicide is definitely part of the equation.
