Gun Legislation

[O Really]

Well, generally we're trying to talk about firearms and how to reduce the amount of firearm violence in the US, which is way more than any comparable "civilized" nation. If we were talking about cancer, we wouldn't bring up heart disease that also kills people, as an argument not to try to reduce cancer deaths. If we were talking about automobile deaths, we wouldn't bring up bikes and motorcycle deaths as an argument not to try to reduce automobile deaths.

Sounds legit. However, why do you people refuse to acknowledge the fact that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. You all prattle on about "the guns" while refusing to acknowledge the breakdowns in society and the criminal element that is usually responsible for gun violence. Time and again it is PROVEN that laws and regulations, staying within the 2nd amendment" DO NO work. Yet, you continue to call for more laws and regulations. Why? Have you not figure out that you are all the epitome of the definition of insanity...continuing with the same actions while expecting different result

If you notice a few posts above, I stated clearly the problems are as much or more cultural as physical. But it is not a fact that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun...it's a fact in that one of this week's shootings, it was a good guy with a pepper spray. But that's not really relevant. Saying "the only way to stop a bad guy..." is just a slogan that offers no real value. How about keeping the bad guy from getting the gun? Are you ready to just toss in the towel and say "bad boys will be bad boys?" What "laws don't work" argument applies to firearms that wouldn't apply to anything else for which there are laws? Besides, it is by no means proven, in either upper or lower case, that laws and regulations don't work. Look at the real statistics about places (in the US) where there are more stringent laws. Of course, there have never been any laws that don't have violators. And looking for different laws, or different enforcement of current laws, or better application of current law is by no means "doing the same thing."

So your argument really is that the only way to reduce gun violence in the US is to arm everybody? Seriously?

[Roland Deschain]

If you notice a few posts above, I stated clearly the problems are as much or more cultural as physical. But it is not a fact that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun...it's a fact in that one of this week's shootings, it was a good guy with a pepper spray. But that's not really relevant. Saying "the only way to stop a bad guy..." is just a slogan that offers no real value. How about keeping the bad guy from getting the gun? Are you ready to just toss in the towel and say "bad boys will be bad boys?" What "laws don't work" argument applies to firearms that wouldn't apply to anything else for which there are laws? Besides, it is by no means proven, in either upper or lower case, that laws and regulations don't work. Look at the real statistics about places (in the US) where there are more stringent laws. Of course, there have never been any laws that don't have violators. And looking for different laws, or different enforcement of current laws, or better application of current law is by no means "doing the same thing."

So your argument really is that the only way to reduce gun violence in the US is to arm everybody? Seriously?

No that is not my argument at all. However, you did prove my point that unless you violate the 2nd Amendment there is no way for laws and regulations to work. You seem smart enough to know, and have said as much, that the problems are largely societal. Yet, you continue to rail for "gun restriction" while admitting that they can not work inside of our constitution. So let look at real stats in the more strict regions of the US. Lets say Chicago...isn't it called the murder capitol?? What about California....you know, where vrede's mass "shooting" occurred. I haven't followed the shotgunner who was pepper sprayed but wasn't he eventually shot too (self inflicted or not)? So again, just how to you propose to stay within the legal limits of the 2nd Amendment and also achieve restrictions that will have the result you desire. Just more of the same....both efforts and results!

[O Really]

I certainly didn't say that unless you violate the 2nd Amendment there is no way for laws and regulations to work. And neither does the Supreme Court. Review what the Court does have to say - hint: it's not that "infringed" has no limits. So let's start with more rigorous background checks. Nothing unconstitutional about that. Let's make everyone who sells firearms to the public in any venue be a licensed dealer subject to the same rules as the shops. Nothing unconstitutional about that.
Let's make everyone have the same level of criminal and civil liability for unsafe use of their firearms as applies to, say, not having a fence around your swimming pool or running over the neighbor's kid in your driveway. Let's quit being so lenient with the "opps" defense when somebody gets shot. Let's go back to the same concept of self-defense that worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years, and quit telling people that just because "they skeered" they can shoot somebody.
Nothing unconstitutional about any of that, and none of that has been tried before.

[Mr.B]

That "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws........" thingy comes to mind.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but let's suppose stricter gun laws are enacted.... (see O Really's post above)

Any nutcase hell-bent on going on a killing spree or robbery is going to get a gun somewhere; legally or illegally. What great ideas come to mind to prevent that?

[Mr.B]

My apologies for posting this, but it is subject matter....and funny!

[JTA]

My apologies for posting this, but it is subject matter....and funny!

Bad-ass of the year 2012. Even has the 'stache and shades to prove it.

[O Really]

That "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws........" thingy comes to mind.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but let's suppose stricter gun laws are enacted.... (see O Really's post above)

Any nutcase hell-bent on going on a killing spree or robbery is going to get a gun somewhere; legally or illegally. What great ideas come to mind to prevent that?

I don't know that there is any other topic where an ostensibly rational person would argue that since "somebody evil is going to do it anyway, why try to stop it." But that's the firearm argument. Here's the response - most of the firearm deaths and injuries aren't from some "nutcase hell-bent on going on a killing spree." The frequency of the killing sprees is just a symptom of how easy it is to get and use firearms legally or illegally. A large part of the problem is that we don't bother to even try to make it difficult for the hell-bent nutcase to amass an arsenal.

[Roland Deschain]

I certainly didn't say that unless you violate the 2nd Amendment there is no way for laws and regulations to work. And neither does the Supreme Court. Review what the Court does have to say - hint: it's not that "infringed" has no limits. So let's start with more rigorous background checks. Nothing unconstitutional about that. Let's make everyone who sells firearms to the public in any venue be a licensed dealer subject to the same rules as the shops. Nothing unconstitutional about that.

Really? What about the commerce clause..or simply the right to sell MY property to whomever I choose. That is just basic liberty. Why do you want to erode part of our freedom? Can I not sell my car to whomever I want? What's to stop the government from saying I can't sell my car to Joe public because he is an alcoholic?

Let's make everyone have the same level of criminal and civil liability for unsafe use of their firearms as applies to, say, not having a fence around your swimming pool or running over the neighbor's kid in your driveway. Let's quit being so lenient with the "opps" defense when somebody gets shot. Let's go back to the same concept of self-defense that worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years, and quit telling people that just because "they skeered" they can shoot somebody.

Hmmm...please site an example of the "they skeered" defense being effectively used...and before you trot out Travon Martin remember that a COURT OF LAW and a JURY found Zimmerman NOT guilty and ruled it self defense. While you are at it why don't you enlighten us as to what the "same concept of self defense that worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years" actually is.

Nothing unconstitutional about any of that, and none of that has been tried before.

[Roland Deschain]

I don't know that there is any other topic where an ostensibly rational person would argue that since "somebody evil is going to do it anyway, why try to stop it." But that's the firearm argument. Here's the response - most of the firearm deaths and injuries aren't from some "nutcase hell-bent on going on a killing spree." The frequency of the killing sprees is just a symptom of how easy it is to get and use firearms legally or illegally. A large part of the problem is that we don't bother to even try to make it difficult for the hell-bent nutcase to amass an arsenal.

So again...how do you LEGALLY prevent someone from obtaining a firearm without violating their constitutional rights?? How about placing a focus more on identifying and treating the hell-bent nut case? Maybe even a return to placing them in institutions. You see that HAS been tried before and that was working until bleeding hearts decided to do away with that practice. "If it saves one child", isn't that the proper rally cry?

[O Really]

Really? What about the commerce clause..or simply the right to sell MY property to whomever I choose. That is just basic liberty. Why do you want to erode part of our freedom? Can I not sell my car to whomever I want? What's to stop the government from saying I can't sell my car to Joe public because he is an alcoholic?

Under my suggestion, you as an individual could still sell your firearm to anyone you choose, but if you sell enough of them, you become a dealer and subject to the same rules as a store. If sales of firearms were recorded, as are sales of cars, the transactions would be recordable so as to distinguish your selling one of your AR-15 "recreational" firearm to your cousin and your selling 10 of them to somebody who wasn't eligible to buy from a store. As to your car example, the buyer can buy the car from you - alcoholic or not - but he's got to register it and if he doesn't have a license, he can't get it on the road. I'm good with that for firearms, too.

[O Really]

Gun ummm, "enthusiasts" like to say, following a shooting, that "if somebody had been armed they could have stopped them." Maybe sometimes, but that is clearly not always the case as courageous but unwise shopper Joseph Wilcox pulled his concealed firearm to try to take down Jerad Miller — not realizing that Amanda Miller was his accomplice. Before he could fire, Amanda Miller shot him in the ribs. Two armed cops and one armed shopper - all dead.

[O Really]

BTW, Chicago may be called by some the "murder capital," but it's rate is going sharply down, along with NYC. On the other hand, there are some places where violent crime is sharply up...most of them not making much of an effort to curtail gun violence. Here's the top ten...
http://time.com/6729/10-cities-where-vi ... s-soaring/

[Roland Deschain]

BTW, Chicago may be called by some the "murder capital," but it's rate is going sharply down, along with NYC. On the other hand, there are some places where violent crime is sharply up...most of them not making much of an effort to curtail gun violence. Here's the top ten...
http://time.com/6729/10-cities-where-vi ... s-soaring/

Really, o'really? That is all you can come up with? From YOUR OWN ARTICLE:

While the prevalence of violent crime — which includes murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault — has declined in many of the nation’s metropolitan areas, in some regions it has increased.

Those are hardly strictly "gun crimes". I expected better from you. Another little factoid that I bet you have no knowledge of...do you know what event also correlates to the large DECREASE in Chicago's murder rate? The legalization of CONCEALED CARRY by the Illinois legislature! Thank you for proving my point!

[Roland Deschain]

Gun ummm, "enthusiasts" like to say, following a shooting, that "if somebody had been armed they could have stopped them." Maybe sometimes, but that is clearly not always the case as courageous but unwise shopper Joseph Wilcox pulled his concealed firearm to try to take down Jerad Miller — not realizing that Amanda Miller was his accomplice. Before he could fire, Amanda Miller shot him in the ribs. Two armed cops and one armed shopper - all dead.

Two shooters also dead, AND NO ONE ELSE

[neoplacebo]

Shooters kill two in pizzaria, then shoot up Wal-Mart, then shoot each other. Damn, if only those having pizza had been armed.... oh wait.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two ... ee-n125766

Some of the reports I'm hearing are stating this was an"ambush" style attack on the cops. There are also yet UNCONFIRMED reports that a concealed carrier may have engaged the couple at the Wal-mat and thus ended the spree....why don't you mention that????

Ok, I'll mention it.....ABC news reported last night that an armed citizen (with a gun) confronted the pair inside Wal-Mart "....and he was shot dead" per the story. Opps.

[O Really]

Hmmm...please site an example of the "they skeered" defense being effectively used...and before you trot out Travon Martin remember that a COURT OF LAW and a JURY found Zimmerman NOT guilty and ruled it self defense. While you are at it why don't you enlighten us as to what the "same concept of self defense that worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years" actually is.

Jeez, must I do all your reading for you? The traditional "self-defense" claim required an attack or a believable "imminent threat" (subject to investigation and evidence) and an attempt by the victim to escape the situation. The standard of showing imminent threat required more than a simple statement of fear or belief that harm was forthcoming. The requirement to attempt escape helped to prevent a person picking a fight and then claiming self defense. Under "castle doctrine," that didn't change very much. You could shoot somebody who broke into your house without a showing of actual attack, but the break-in was (is) considered sufficient. Further, you aren't required to attempt escape from your own house. But "Stand Your Ground" made major changes. Removed the requirement to try to escape or retreat; removed the premises limitation in "Castle" and lowered the standard for "imminent threat." This makes it possible for a lot of defendants to plead SYG (whether successful or not) in instances that would not have been seen as self-defense before. I don't have and don't have time to look for all national figures, but in Florida, there have been 134 fatal cases (as of January) in which the Stand Your Ground defense was raised or played a role. Of those, 19 percent involved deaths of children or teens. Another 14 involved victims who were 20 or 21. Also there were 8 teens who were non-fatally injured in cases where someone else was killed. Of those, cases, 75 were "justified," 44 were convicted, and 15 are pending.

These cases provided some insight as to whether SYG improves justice. For example, a nine-year old was killed in crossfire and the defendant raised a SYG defense, unsuccessfully, but still...

18-year-old Daniel Amore was stabbed to death by his 31-year-old legal guardian Kunta Grant, after Amore punched him during a dispute. Grant was given Stand Your Ground immunity by a judge.

18-year-old Carlos Mustelier was shot to death, after he and his 16-year-old friend approached Thomas Baker jogging, and one took a swing at him. Thomas responded “You wanna play games? You wanna play games?” and fired eight shots. The surviving teen said they planned to rob Baker, but neither was armed. A Hillsborough County prosecutor opted not to charge Baker.

19-year-old Christopher Cote was killed by his neighbor, after a dispute over walking his dog on his new neighbor’s property. When Cote came back, unarmed, to talk to 62-year-old Jose Tapones about the dispute, Tapones answered the door with a shotgun, stepped outside onto the lawn, and shot Cote twice. A judge declined to grant Tapones Stand Your Ground immunity during his first trial, but was granted a new trial and acquitted the second time around.

SYG has been claimed by defendants who left an altercation, went to their house or car to get a firearm, returned to the original scene and then shot the other guy while he was trying to run away.

But to a large degree, it doesn't matter much if most defendants are not, SYG also has other impacts. First, law enforcement officers sometimes use the Stand Your Ground law as a basis for not charging the shooter to begin with. Second, many defendants who are charged request a special Stand Your Ground hearing and may be granted immunity by a judge before even going to trial. Third, defendants may raise the Stand Your Ground defense during the trial as a basis for acquittal. And fourth, the language of the Stand Your Ground law may be incorporated into the jury instructions and factor into the jury’s decision, even where the defense is not explicitly raised by the defendant.

So yeah. Getting rid of SYG is not "more new laws" and it's not unconstitutional.

[Mr.B]

Two Men Use Girl As Human Shield—Until Her Father Guns Them Down
The Daily Caller

A St. Louis couple is likely thankful to have guns in their home after they were forced to use them to defend their daughter against two men Monday night.

The men, one of whom had an extensive rap sheet, confronted the couples’ 17 year-old daughter after she stepped outside of the house to go to her car, reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Cortez McClinton, 33, and Terrell Johnson, 31, held a gun to the girl’s head and used her as a shield as they entered the family home,
where a five-year old child was also present.

The girl’s father and mother witnessed the abduction, and both retrieved their guns. When McClinton and Johnson entered, the father fired several shots, hitting both men. The girl’s mother fired one shot but missed.

Johnson died at the scene. McClinton was wounded but was able to scramble off. He had his brother take him to the hospital.

In 2010, McClinton was charged with shooting another man. Charges were eventually dropped due to lack of witness participation. He also had drug possession and distribution charges against him.

McClinton is charged with second-degree murder, kidnapping, burglary, and criminal armed action and is being held on $1 million bond.

[Mr.B]

"There are always anecdotes that gunhuggers cream their shorts over. The fact remains that a gun in the home increases the odds of the gun owner or a family member being hurt or killed."

That post is hardly an "anecdote". We might "cream our shorts", but stories like this where someone successfully stood their ground make you libbies crap yours.
The gun in this home greatly "decreased" (but in reality, totally eliminated) the likelihood of a family member being hurt or killed.

I liked this father's version of "gun control"; Mama didn't have any control, she missed.

[Roland Deschain]

Hmmm...please site an example of the "they skeered" defense being effectively used...and before you trot out Travon Martin remember that a COURT OF LAW and a JURY found Zimmerman NOT guilty and ruled it self defense. While you are at it why don't you enlighten us as to what the "same concept of self defense that worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years" actually is.

Jeez, must I do all your reading for you? The traditional "self-defense" claim required an attack or a believable "imminent threat" (subject to investigation and evidence) and an attempt by the victim to escape the situation. The standard of showing imminent threat required more than a simple statement of fear or belief that harm was forthcoming. The requirement to attempt escape helped to prevent a person picking a fight and then claiming self defense. Under "castle doctrine," that didn't change very much. You could shoot somebody who broke into your house without a showing of actual attack, but the break-in was (is) considered sufficient. Further, you aren't required to attempt escape from your own house. But "Stand Your Ground" made major changes. Removed the requirement to try to escape or retreat; removed the premises limitation in "Castle" and lowered the standard for "imminent threat." This makes it possible for a lot of defendants to plead SYG (whether successful or not) in instances that would not have been seen as self-defense before. I don't have and don't have time to look for all national figures, but in Florida, there have been 134 fatal cases (as of January) in which the Stand Your Ground defense was raised or played a role. Of those, 19 percent involved deaths of children or teens. Another 14 involved victims who were 20 or 21. Also there were 8 teens who were non-fatally injured in cases where someone else was killed. Of those, cases, 75 were "justified," 44 were convicted, and 15 are pending.

So one is not entitled to defend themselves in their own vehicle, a rented hotel room that they have paid for, or their own RV when away from home? Those are the changes in the premises limitation and I suppose you think that you should wait until one is actually struck, stabbed or shot after a break in to a location as defined under "castle" to show imminent threat???


These cases provided some insight as to whether SYG improves justice. For example, a nine-year old was killed in crossfire and the defendant raised a SYG defense, unsuccessfully, but still...

I said EFFECTIVELY USED

18-year-old Daniel Amore was stabbed to death by his 31-year-old legal guardian Kunta Grant, after Amore punched him during a dispute. Grant was given Stand Your Ground immunity by a judge.

Fear of serious bodily injury or death... Regardless of your opinion the LAW says differently and this was SELF DEFENSE

18-year-old Carlos Mustelier was shot to death, after he and his 16-year-old friend approached Thomas Baker jogging, and one took a swing at him. Thomas responded “You wanna play games? You wanna play games?” and fired eight shots. The surviving teen said they planned to rob Baker, but neither was armed. A Hillsborough County prosecutor opted not to charge Baker.

You really need to do better

19-year-old Christopher Cote was killed by his neighbor, after a dispute over walking his dog on his new neighbor’s property. When Cote came back, unarmed, to talk to 62-year-old Jose Tapones about the dispute, Tapones answered the door with a shotgun, stepped outside onto the lawn, and shot Cote twice. A judge declined to grant Tapones Stand Your Ground immunity during his first trial, but was granted a new trial and acquitted the second time around.

Left and came back....I know you would rather have Tapones been shot at first. A factoid that sort of fits at this point. A person with a knife is an imminent threat from 21 feet and closer. You can not draw and fire fast enough to effectively stop an attacker with a knife at 21 feet....you might not die but you are cut.

SYG has been claimed by defendants who left an altercation, went to their house or car to get a firearm, returned to the original scene and then shot the other guy while he was trying to run away.

Claimed? I said effectively used.

But to a large degree, it doesn't matter much if most defendants are not, SYG also has other impacts. First, law enforcement officers sometimes use the Stand Your Ground law as a basis for not charging the shooter to begin with. Second, many defendants who are charged request a special Stand Your Ground hearing and may be granted immunity by a judge before even going to trial. Third, defendants may raise the Stand Your Ground defense during the trial as a basis for acquittal. And fourth, the language of the Stand Your Ground law may be incorporated into the jury instructions and factor into the jury’s decision, even where the defense is not explicitly raised by the defendant.

So yeah. Getting rid of SYG is not "more new laws" and it's not unconstitutional.

Well I asked you to give examples of where SYG was effectively used. However, out of three examples given by you only ONE is even borderline not by definition "classic" self defense and one was totally uneffective. I'd suggest a bit more research and see if you can do a bit better with this argument, because at this point you are not doing too well

[Roland Deschain]

Opps. There's nothing to suggest he "ended the spree" or that he would have been any less effective if he'd gone after them with Silly String. He is just a wannabe hero with a gun like Roland Deschain that wrecked his own family.

There is also nothing to suggest that he did NOT end the spree....well, other than the history of other mass shooting/suicides that show once the perpetrator/s are engaged by any form of a preventative force a vast majority have taken their own life quickly. They were found with "hundreds of rounds of ammunition" and were prepared for what appeared to be a "lengthy gun battle". So what did stop them????