Miami school shooting

[Efbe]

DurianIceCream said:

Efbe said:

No. My opinion on what 2A means is based on me being able to read.

The net surf is regarding the various court interpretations over the years of which there have been numerous in rather a lot of detail.

Having detailed knowledge of the US and the US court cases has nothing to do with being able to understand one short sentence.

But you said the 2A enabled the state to set up a standing army. You have done your 'understanding one short sentence' and decided, among other things, that is is referring to a standing army. It doesn't say anything about a standing army.

right to bear arms is to facilitate a militia. simple as that.

[DurianIceCream]

p1stonhead said:

This wasnt

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp...

Classic. "Gonzales said he learned about the incident when his 17-year-old son came home with blood on his shirt and bullet fragments in his neck."

There is also a video on Youtube of a FBI (I think; may have been another agency) agent giving a gun safety class in a school, to a room full of primary school kids. Accidental discharge, right into his foot. The agent, now with a hole in his foot, continues with the gun safety lesson, explaining to the class how this shows why you need to be careful.

---

That's why I'm not a believer in walking around armed for self-defence. There might be some situations where it helps you but there is a lot more scope for things to go wrong.

[Dr Jekyll]

Efbe said:

DurianIceCream said:

Efbe said:

No. My opinion on what 2A means is based on me being able to read.

The net surf is regarding the various court interpretations over the years of which there have been numerous in rather a lot of detail.

Having detailed knowledge of the US and the US court cases has nothing to do with being able to understand one short sentence.

But you said the 2A enabled the state to set up a standing army. You have done your 'understanding one short sentence' and decided, among other things, that is is referring to a standing army. It doesn't say anything about a standing army.

right to bear arms is to facilitate a militia. simple as that.

As opposed to a standing army.

[RTB]

DurianIceCream said:

That's why I'm not a believer in walking around armed for self-defence. There might be some situations where it helps you but there is a lot more scope for things to go wrong.

Very true, it's also backed up by the numbers:

The number of justifiable homicides with a firearm in 2012 (the only year I can find figures) was 259,the same year there was 8342 criminal homicides with guns, 20666 suicides and 548 unintentional shootings (hunting accidents, accidental discharges etc). This means there are around 40 fatalities caused by firearms for every justifiable self defence fatality. So I agree with you, being armed, either domestically or in public doesn't provide much benefit when weighed against the cost of having so many firearms washing about.

[Dr Jekyll]

RTB said:

Very true, it's also backed up by the numbers:

The number of justifiable homicides with a firearm in 2012 (the only year I can find figures) was 259,the same year there was 8342 criminal homicides with guns, 20666 suicides and 548 unintentional shootings (hunting accidents, accidental discharges etc). This means there are around 40 fatalities caused by firearms for every justifiable self defence fatality. So I agree with you, being armed, either domestically or in public doesn't provide much benefit when weighed against the cost of having so many firearms washing about.

Only if you assume the purpose of being armed is to inflict self defence fatalities. It's possible that many people used firearms to repel an attack without killing or even shooting anyone, or their firearms discouraged an attack in the first place. You don't judge the effectiveness of guard dogs by the number of burglars they bite.

[RTB]

Dr Jekyll said:

Only if you assume the purpose of being armed is to inflict self defence fatalities. It's possible that many people used firearms to repel an attack without killing or even shooting anyone, or their firearms discouraged an attack in the first place. You don't judge the effectiveness of guard dogs by the number of burglars they bite.

That is very true, and I was thinking that as I was typing. Then again, in the same vein I wonder how many intruders would have legged it just by hearing the home owner in the house rather than having to be faced with a .45 barrel?

[Efbe]

Dr Jekyll said:

Efbe said:

DurianIceCream said:

Efbe said:

No. My opinion on what 2A means is based on me being able to read.

The net surf is regarding the various court interpretations over the years of which there have been numerous in rather a lot of detail.

Having detailed knowledge of the US and the US court cases has nothing to do with being able to understand one short sentence.

But you said the 2A enabled the state to set up a standing army. You have done your 'understanding one short sentence' and decided, among other things, that is is referring to a standing army. It doesn't say anything about a standing army.

right to bear arms is to facilitate a militia. simple as that.

As opposed to a standing army.

What does it matter?
The US has clearly misinterpreted the 2A to mean everyone has a right to bear arms, ignoring that this should be to support a militia.

[mko9]

Dr Jekyll said:

RTB said:

Very true, it's also backed up by the numbers:

The number of justifiable homicides with a firearm in 2012 (the only year I can find figures) was 259,the same year there was 8342 criminal homicides with guns, 20666 suicides and 548 unintentional shootings (hunting accidents, accidental discharges etc). This means there are around 40 fatalities caused by firearms for every justifiable self defence fatality. So I agree with you, being armed, either domestically or in public doesn't provide much benefit when weighed against the cost of having so many firearms washing about.

Only if you assume the purpose of being armed is to inflict self defence fatalities. It's possible that many people used firearms to repel an attack without killing or even shooting anyone, or their firearms discouraged an attack in the first place. You don't judge the effectiveness of guard dogs by the number of burglars they bite.

Exactly. Using even the lowest estimates from studies on the matter, guns are used in self-defense about 150 times a day, every day. You don't have to kill someone in order to successfully defend yourself with a gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

[p1stonhead]

mko9 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

RTB said:

Very true, it's also backed up by the numbers:

The number of justifiable homicides with a firearm in 2012 (the only year I can find figures) was 259,the same year there was 8342 criminal homicides with guns, 20666 suicides and 548 unintentional shootings (hunting accidents, accidental discharges etc). This means there are around 40 fatalities caused by firearms for every justifiable self defence fatality. So I agree with you, being armed, either domestically or in public doesn't provide much benefit when weighed against the cost of having so many firearms washing about.

Only if you assume the purpose of being armed is to inflict self defence fatalities. It's possible that many people used firearms to repel an attack without killing or even shooting anyone, or their firearms discouraged an attack in the first place. You don't judge the effectiveness of guard dogs by the number of burglars they bite.

Exactly. Using even the lowest estimates from studies on the matter, guns are used in self-defense about 150 times a day, every day. You don't have to kill someone in order to successfully defend yourself with a gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

[jmorgan]

How many produce their weapon for the wrong reasons. Apart form the murdering etc.

[Efbe]

mko9 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

RTB said:

Very true, it's also backed up by the numbers:

The number of justifiable homicides with a firearm in 2012 (the only year I can find figures) was 259,the same year there was 8342 criminal homicides with guns, 20666 suicides and 548 unintentional shootings (hunting accidents, accidental discharges etc). This means there are around 40 fatalities caused by firearms for every justifiable self defence fatality. So I agree with you, being armed, either domestically or in public doesn't provide much benefit when weighed against the cost of having so many firearms washing about.

Only if you assume the purpose of being armed is to inflict self defence fatalities. It's possible that many people used firearms to repel an attack without killing or even shooting anyone, or their firearms discouraged an attack in the first place. You don't judge the effectiveness of guard dogs by the number of burglars they bite.

Exactly. Using even the lowest estimates from studies on the matter, guns are used in self-defense about 150 times a day, every day. You don't have to kill someone in order to successfully defend yourself with a gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

which is about the same as offensive incidents isn't it?

so the positive benefits are completely negated by the negative benefits.

[frankenstein12]

Saw an interesting short video today on twitter in relation to the school walk outs of a young lad at his school walkout holding up a banner like many of his classmates except his said " Guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns" and he was being accosted by the school headmaster and told to put it away and he refused and the headmaster apparently threatened to have him arrested/put in a police car and risk expulsion.

[Russian Troll Bot]

frankenstein12 said:

Saw an interesting short video today on twitter in relation to the school walk outs of a young lad at his school walkout holding up a banner like many of his classmates except his said " Guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns" and he was being accosted by the school headmaster and told to put it away and he refused and the headmaster apparently threatened to have him arrested/put in a police car and risk expulsion.

If only the Head had been armed, he wouldn't have tried to pull that stunt then.

[SystemParanoia]

glc fan ?

[jmorgan]

frankenstein12 said:

Saw an interesting short video today on twitter in relation to the school walk outs of a young lad at his school walkout holding up a banner like many of his classmates except his said " Guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns" and he was being accosted by the school headmaster and told to put it away and he refused and the headmaster apparently threatened to have him arrested/put in a police car and risk expulsion.

Carrying his freedom of thought then and getting what a lot of the walkouts are getting on the web (there are some really nasty people out there), might interest him to take note as to what their menage is and not listen to his family or small groups that is egging him on. Freedom of thought and all that but the main thrust of the walkout was abundantly clear though there will always be one or two.

Maybe he should have added "guns give people the means to mentally detach themselves from the act of killing by moving a small bit of metal at a distance and removing the killer from the personal act of killing thereby making it very easy to do the murdering"


Though he would have needed a bigger sign.

[Gameface]

shoggoth1 said:

croyde said:

Pro gun mum shot in the back by 4 year old son.

Sorry but had to laugh. The irony.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484064/Pr...

Err, that was two years ago...

Does anyone know if she's so rabidly pro gun nowadays?

Pretty hard to have a Facebook page called Gun sense when she leaves one on the back seat with her four year old.

[mko9]

Efbe said:

mko9 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

RTB said:

Very true, it's also backed up by the numbers:

The number of justifiable homicides with a firearm in 2012 (the only year I can find figures) was 259,the same year there was 8342 criminal homicides with guns, 20666 suicides and 548 unintentional shootings (hunting accidents, accidental discharges etc). This means there are around 40 fatalities caused by firearms for every justifiable self defence fatality. So I agree with you, being armed, either domestically or in public doesn't provide much benefit when weighed against the cost of having so many firearms washing about.

Only if you assume the purpose of being armed is to inflict self defence fatalities. It's possible that many people used firearms to repel an attack without killing or even shooting anyone, or their firearms discouraged an attack in the first place. You don't judge the effectiveness of guard dogs by the number of burglars they bite.

Exactly. Using even the lowest estimates from studies on the matter, guns are used in self-defense about 150 times a day, every day. You don't have to kill someone in order to successfully defend yourself with a gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

which is about the same as offensive incidents isn't it?

so the positive benefits are completely negated by the negative benefits.

Or, the negative effects have been cut in half by the effective use of guns in self defense. Or are you suggesting that all murders/assualts/rapes/home break ins/etc would stop once guns were eliminated?

[RTB]

mko9 said:

Or, the negative effects have been cut in half by the effective use of guns in self defense. Or are you suggesting that all murders/assualts/rapes/home break ins/etc would stop once guns were eliminated?

Going off the crime figures for most developed nations as a base line, I'd expect the number of property crimes and rapes would stay about the same, murders would probably fall (killing someone with a hand weapon or your bare hands is harder than with a gun). Assaults would probably stay the same as well.

[98elise]

Gameface said:

shoggoth1 said:

croyde said:

Pro gun mum shot in the back by 4 year old son.

Sorry but had to laugh. The irony.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484064/Pr...

Err, that was two years ago...

Does anyone know if she's so rabidly pro gun nowadays?

Pretty hard to have a Facebook page called Gun sense when she leaves one on the back seat with her four year old.

If only she had been armed then she could have returned fire.

[Efbe]

mko9 said:

Efbe said:

mko9 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

RTB said:

Very true, it's also backed up by the numbers:

The number of justifiable homicides with a firearm in 2012 (the only year I can find figures) was 259,the same year there was 8342 criminal homicides with guns, 20666 suicides and 548 unintentional shootings (hunting accidents, accidental discharges etc). This means there are around 40 fatalities caused by firearms for every justifiable self defence fatality. So I agree with you, being armed, either domestically or in public doesn't provide much benefit when weighed against the cost of having so many firearms washing about.

Only if you assume the purpose of being armed is to inflict self defence fatalities. It's possible that many people used firearms to repel an attack without killing or even shooting anyone, or their firearms discouraged an attack in the first place. You don't judge the effectiveness of guard dogs by the number of burglars they bite.

Exactly. Using even the lowest estimates from studies on the matter, guns are used in self-defense about 150 times a day, every day. You don't have to kill someone in order to successfully defend yourself with a gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

which is about the same as offensive incidents isn't it?

so the positive benefits are completely negated by the negative benefits.

Or, the negative effects have been cut in half by the effective use of guns in self defense. Or are you suggesting that all murders/assualts/rapes/home break ins/etc would stop once guns were eliminated?

no, I am saying that the numbers of murders/assaults/rapes/home break ins/etc that involve guns would be Zero, if there were no guns.

You seem to be arguing that in every case of self-defense of having a gun, then a murders/assaults/rapes/home break would have occurred without the gun being there to stop it.