Cases Where Citizens Repealed Attackers With A Firearm

[dieselram94]

I could ask for facts from you just as easily... Lets leave it as we are products of differing environments. I live where police are available and respond quickly. That clouds my opinions. Your situation clouds yours. One problem is that we need to have laws that cover both situations. If you read my manifesto (if that is what you will call it), I think you will see I am not as closed minded as you think.

I can accept your different opinion very easily, however I am tired of people (no one specific) trying to take away my rights and the things I enjoy. I am not in support of more govt oversight as it just ultimately means the loss of freedoms under the guise of safety or fairness. You very well may be open minded but the tone of your posts don't point in that direction. How would you like it if I was to try to limit the first amendment? I bet you wouldn't be very welcoming to that idea.....

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[dejapooh]

Tell that to the 10,s of thousands of people that use their weapons to save the lives of their families, friends and theirselves as well as their property every year...

10's of thousands? Sounds high to me. You could be right, but it still sounds high to me.

 

[dejapooh]

Dejapooh, you are as closed minded as anyone could be....what facts did you have to Support your claims firearms promote violence instead of deter violence? I live in a very rural area and for the police to respond would be about 45 mins. You don't think my guns are quite a deterent? Facts please.

Actually, there are no statistics to support my claim. The Gun Lobby prevents the collection of such statistics. I have anecdotal evidence, but we all know what that is worth...

 

[dieselram94]

Dejapooh, you mentioned two sets of laws because of different environments in regard to the second. I am curious as to what you think these laws should be. Please do not take this inquisition as a willingness to negotiate any of our rights, I am just curious...

 

[dejapooh]

deja, I'm saying this in all due respect. Your 7 listed points make sense at face value but, none of them would have prevented any of the recent shootings. Then there are those of us who feel that, if the government has a list of where the guns are, when they decide to take them it will be easy to find them. Some of "law enforcements" actions during Katrina were shocking if true. I don't really believe there is a government plot to take away all of our rights but, if they feel a need, they will stop at nothing. It has been suggested that one way to eliminate firearms already in our hands is to not allow them to be passed down to family members, they would have to be turned in upon the death of the present owner. That being the case, I'm making criminals of my grandchildren. The guy that kidnapped the kid and shot the schoolbus driver did it with a handgun, not a assault rifle. So, let's say there weren't anymore AR15's in the world and someone uses a handgun that they stole from someone and comitted a crime. Are we NOW at the point of gathering ALL guns? There are some in our government that would love that as long as their bodyguards could have theirs.

I understand your hesitation at lists of owners. Such lists interfere with the revolutionary intent of the 2nd amendment. That is why I would want to set up some kind of wall to make the list isolated from government. Barring that, I recognize the danger of the list. I also recognize that none of these 7 ideas would have done anything to prevent the shootings except that perhaps the mother would be on the list for having a mentally ill person in the house. Further, requiring training, she may have had locks on the weapons, which would have helped. What I am saying is that the little evidence available seems to indicate that background checks can help. That reasonable and rational policy would be to start universal background checks. The gun lobby says that we should first enforce the laws we have on the books, then lobby congress to make sure those laws can not be enforced. Why is ATF underfunded to the point where they do not even claim any remote ability to do their job. Why does the ATF not have a department head. They are appointed, but the gun lobby will not allow them to progress to a vote. We have to start movement in some way. All I want is to make the laws reasonable and enforce the laws we have. I also recognize that the NRA and the Republican party make that impossible.

 

[dejapooh]

It's a fact that through out history registration has lead to confiscation which lead to far worse. We all know how to
read. Never happen to the U.S.? Think again.

There is a fallacy that history repeats itself. I never does. It echos. Also, I don't think I ever called for registration... I called for legitimate background checks.

 

[dieselram94]

I understand your hesitation at lists of owners. Such lists interfere with the revolutionary intent of the 2nd amendment. That is why I would want to set up some kind of wall to make the list isolated from government. Barring that, I recognize the danger of the list. I also recognize that none of these 7 ideas would have done anything to prevent the shootings except that perhaps the mother would be on the list for having a mentally ill person in the house. Further, requiring training, she may have had locks on the weapons, which would have helped. What I am saying is that the little evidence available seems to indicate that background checks can help. That reasonable and rational policy would be to start universal background checks. The gun lobby says that we should first enforce the laws we have on the books, then lobby congress to make sure those laws can not be enforced. Why is ATF underfunded to the point where they do not even claim any remote ability to do their job. Why does the ATF not have a department head. They are appointed, but the gun lobby will not allow them to progress to a vote. We have to start movement in some way. All I want is to make the laws reasonable and enforce the laws we have. I also recognize that the NRA and the Republican party make that impossible.

You mention the republicans as a problem (I.e. in a bad connotation) what if any falts do you see the democrats as having?

 

[dejapooh]

I can accept your different opinion very easily, however I am tired of people (no one specific) trying to take away my rights and the things I enjoy. I am not in support of more govt oversight as it just ultimately means the loss of freedoms under the guise of safety or fairness. You very well may be open minded but the tone of your posts don't point in that direction. How would you like it if I was to try to limit the first amendment? I bet you wouldn't be very welcoming to that idea.....

Actually, what I have called for would not limit the 2nd amendment at all except for convicted criminals and those who are mentally ill. I would say I am open minded. I used to believe that we should round up the guns. I now realize that not only would that cause an unnecessary revolt, but it would not accomplish anything. With 300,000,000 guns out there, trying to round them up would be like trying to round up all of the pennies. I argue against the "Cold Dead Hands" folks because they are generally unwilling to listen to even things that they proposed a few years ago.

 

[dieselram94]

The ONLY reason to register guns is so the govt knows where to confiscate them from....

 

[packerbacker]

deja...............in response to your response to my post. I agree with everything you said except the last sentence. Heck, I almost "liked" your response with an official "like".

 

[dieselram94]

Actually, what I have called for would not limit the 2nd amendment at all except for convicted criminals and those who are mentally ill. I would say I am open minded. I used to believe that we should round up the guns. I now realize that not only would that cause an unnecessary revolt, but it would not accomplish anything. With 300,000,000 guns out there, trying to round them up would be like trying to round up all of the pennies. I argue against the "Cold Dead Hands" folks because they are generally unwilling to listen to even things that they proposed a few years ago.

I think we are all tired of being treated as criminals and second class citizens. The second is very clear....shall not be infringed.....

 

[dejapooh]

You mention the republicans as a problem (I.e. in a bad connotation) what if any falts do you see the democrats as having?

Yes. Democrats can be as closed minded when it comes to emotional arguments. The republican party has ceded the science to the democratic party and has resorted to emotional arguments to support their vision. The democrats are terrible at playing that emotional game, yet insist on playing it. The democrats are unable to stand together and speak with one voice. The Democrats are unwilling to call BS what it is, thus the give some arguments to the republicans. Democrats are willing to negotiate their values, and do. You have to realize that every coin has to side, and some coins have 2 heads. All freedoms to are also freedoms from.

From the example we are starting from, Data on Gun Crimes, you can't really say anything except that the republican party and their members in congress have regularly interfered with the collection and interpretation of data having to do with gun crime. For me, there is a value judgement there. If you do not like where the data seems to be heading in scientific data collection, you do not stop collecting data. To me, that is promoting ignorance. I would be interested in hearing how you would justify the prevention of data collection? Data is innocent. Those who interpret it are guilty.

 

[dejapooh]

I think we are all tired of being treated as criminals and second class citizens. The second is very clear....shall not be infringed.....

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Yet, I can not yell fire in a theater. Every freedom in the bill of rights has been modified by common sense. You can not yell fire, You have to be a real religion before you get the tax break, so on. Every right is qualified by the fact that all rights to are also rights from. That is the tension between the right and the left. Where is the balancing point since a right is absolute. I think that the idea that the 2nd amendment is somehow different is a bit scary, but at this point, reality dictates we have to learn to live with guns. I could see a safety course and shooting practice in public school (and I am a teacher).

 

[dejapooh]

Dejapooh, you mentioned two sets of laws because of different environments in regard to the second. I am curious as to what you think these laws should be. Please do not take this inquisition as a willingness to negotiate any of our rights, I am just curious...

No, what I said was that the difficult we have perhaps comes from the fact that we need ONE set of laws to handle 2 different environments.

 

[dejapooh]

The ONLY reason to register guns is so the govt knows where to confiscate them from....

Then it is a good think that I am not asking for a registry. Just background check.

 

[dejapooh]

deja...............in response to your response to my post. I agree with everything you said except the last sentence. Heck, I almost "liked" your response with an official "like".

If I only knew what I said in that last sentence. I would like to get that like...

 

[Crispin]

Actually, what I have called for would not limit the 2nd amendment at all except for convicted criminals and those who are mentally ill. I would say I am open minded. I used to believe that we should round up the guns. I now realize that not only would that cause an unnecessary revolt, but it would not accomplish anything. With 300,000,000 guns out there, trying to round them up would be like trying to round up all of the pennies. I argue against the "Cold Dead Hands" folks because they are generally unwilling to listen to even things that they proposed a few years ago.

Respectfully, I am a big fan of yours,
What restrictions do you propose we put on the mentally ill? Tens of millions of Americans are treated for depression and anxiety. Do all of them get restrictions? Do we base it on diagnosis? Say...schizophrenia. Diagnosis in psychiatry are tenuous at best. I could call it psychosis NOS instead. Anybody who has an allergic reaction to an antibiotic can become psychotic and get that diagnosis. Do they get banned from having guns?

You cannot limit access of firearms to the mentally ill in an anticipatory manner....unless you got a better idea.

Now, I am a proponent of preventing access retrospectively. The theoretical example thread is a great statement for this. However, do you want to give me the power to take somebody's gun away, if I deem it necessary, and without an imminent threat? Will this prevent people from seeking much needed psychiatric care? What would the NRA say about this and "shall not be infringed?"

All this is meant to be respectful,

Crispin

 

[Crispin]

deja...............in response to your response to my post. I agree with everything you said except the last sentence. Heck, I almost "liked" your response with an official "like".

Do it man! Do it! Hit the button!

 

[pong12211]

Actually, what I have called for would not limit the 2nd amendment at all except for convicted criminals and those who are mentally ill. I would say I am open minded. I used to believe that we should round up the guns. I now realize that not only would that cause an unnecessary revolt, but it would not accomplish anything. With 300,000,000 guns out there, trying to round them up would be like trying to round up all of the pennies. I argue against the "Cold Dead Hands" folks because they are generally unwilling to listen to even things that they proposed a few years ago.

You don't want to open this door trust me... There are some highly educated people in here on this particular subject.... Best of luck.....

 

[dejapooh]

Respectfully, I am a big fan of yours,
What restrictions do you propose we put on the mentally ill? Tens of millions of Americans are treated for depression and anxiety. Do all of them get restrictions? Do we base it on diagnosis? Say...schizophrenia. Diagnosis in psychiatry are tenuous at best. I could call it psychosis NOS instead. Anybody who has an allergic reaction to an antibiotic can become psychotic and get that diagnosis. Do they get banned from having guns?

You cannot limit access of firearms to the mentally ill in an anticipatory manner....unless you got a better idea.

Now, I am a proponent of preventing access retrospectively. The theoretical example thread is a great statement for this. However, do you want to give me the power to take somebody's gun away, if I deem it necessary, and without an imminent threat? Will this prevent people from seeking much needed psychiatric care? What would the NRA say about this and "shall not be infringed?"

All this is meant to be respectful,

Crispin

The current standard seems to be if they are a danger to themselves or to others in the considered opinion of a professional. It is kind of wishy washy. There is no definate way to include all who should be included nor exclude all those who should be. I am open to other opinions, as this is not my field of expertise.