Conn. Heavily Controls Guns : Result : 20 Children Slaughtered

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

The reality is that you are more likely to get shot in your home if you have guns in your home.

Any plans to support this assertion with data?

[ms maggie]

Speaking of rocket science, you are aware that it is illegal to buy a firearm outside of your home state, right? I mean, you did know this, right?

And if you do, what's to stop you from bringing it into your home state? Ask Bloomberg about that.

[veritas]

Oh Lord, and finally the old slippery slope argument. By this logic I should be able to buy a tank or nuclear sub, after all isn't this my Second Amendment right?

As for me, when I heard these kids were riddled with bullets, up to 11 per victim, my immediate thought was well thank God we can buy these kinds of assault rifles. Damn shame about those babies, but I'm sure the founders were thinking of the acceptability of this kind of carnage when they penned that bit about a well regulated militia.

Why do you guys always go for the false equivalencies? Nobody but nobody is advocating hand grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, bombs or any of the other nonsense you throw in to try and sensationalize the discussion.

As for the slippery slope argument there is nothing wrong with it when it is absolutely true. The left wants to keep the definition of assault weapons as fluid as possible so it leaves the door open for further expansion as "necessary". We all know that. Why deny it?

Lastly, your comment on the founders is superfluous. What they no doubt couldn't imagine was the type of deranged minds that our modern society is breeding. That would indeed be a revelation to them.

[flyboy56]

The point is, it wasn't an armed populace that brought it down. It like TSE said, not with a bang but a whimper.

But I bet they wished they could have fought back. The Iron Curtain suppressed anyone who spoke up against the Soviet Union. KGB were everywhere and you could not even trust your own family and friends. The only recourse they had was to try to escape, but many were shot down while trying and left to rot in the barbed wire fence as an example to anyone else who thought about trying to escape. How would you like to live under such tyranny?

[flyboy56]

And if you do, what's to stop you from bringing it into your home state? Ask Bloomberg about that.

In Massachusetts if you bring a hand gun across borders without a permit a 6 month jail time is mandatory.

[ms maggie]

Any plans to support this assertion with data?

I thought this was common knowledge?

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home [. . .]. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home [. . .].

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

http://skeptikai.com/2012/07/30/does...ience-answers/

A gun in the house minimally doubles the risk that a household member will kill himself or herself. (Some studies put the increase in suicide risk as high as 10 times.) An American is 50% more likely to be shot dead by his or her own hand than to be shot dead by a criminal assailant. More than 30,000 Americans injure themselves with guns every year.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinio...uns/index.html

There is an interesting link in the CNN article

[veritas]

You had better play nice with us "Liberals" because it very obviously has not registered with you yet (or perhaps it has), how badly you were beaten in the November election and how emphatically the country rejected your polices and conservative platform.

Is that why 60 libs were sent packing in the 2010 election? Because the country has rejected conservatism?

[ms maggie]

Why do you guys always go for the false equivalencies? Nobody but nobody is advocating hand grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, bombs or any of the other nonsense you throw in to try and sensationalize the discussion.

As for the slippery slope argument there is nothing wrong with it when it is absolutely true. The left wants to keep the definition of assault weapons as fluid as possible so it leaves the door open for further expansion as "necessary". We all know that. Why deny it?

Lastly, your comment on the founders is superfluous. What they no doubt couldn't imagine was the type of deranged minds that our modern society is breeding. That would indeed be a revelation to them.

I see, so the slippery slope only goes on way? It's absolutely a slippery slope if the Bushmaster is banned--the next thing little Johnny's bb gun is being confiscated. But of course the other way, no so much. Seems to me guns are getting more and more lethal, but that of course, that's not a slippery slope.

And btw, I would suggest a musket, the weaponry of the well regulated militia, is further removed from a Bushmaster than a Bushmaster is from a hand grenade. Uh oh, slippery slope time.....

Idiocy. Thank God this is finally being seen for what it is.

And so deranged minds are a phemon of the 21st century? Everyone back in colonial times was sweet and pure, bucolic and peaceful all around, no mental illness. What a crock, where do you get this stuff?

[veritas]

I thought this was common knowledge?



http://skeptikai.com/2012/07/30/does...ience-answers/



http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinio...uns/index.html

There is an interesting link in the CNN article

And 30,000+ die in car crashes. Life is not without risks. One easily determined statistic is that the chance that you can shoot a home invader without a weapon is 0%. I bet those folks burned alive in CT would have liked to up the odds a bit.

[ms maggie]

And 30,000+ die in car crashes. Life is not without risks. One easily determined statistic is that the chance that you can shoot a home invader without a weapon is 0%. I bet those folks burned alive in CT would have liked to up the odds a bit.

And the chances you can shoot yourself or a loved one are likewise 0% if you don't have a weapon in the house.

Car crashes? Jesus, you have the nerve to bring up false equivalency???

A car is useful. What is the utility of a Bushmaster?

[Jeebus]

Speaking of rocket science, you are aware that it is illegal to buy a firearm outside of your home state, right?

No, it's not.

You cannot buy a regulated firearm (handgun) outside your home state (unless it is shipped to a FFL in your home state and you pick it up there), but it's perfectly legal to buy a non-regulated firearm (rifle or shotgun) in any state you visit and walk out the door with it.

Argue your point with gusto, but don't make stuff up.

[Jeebus]

I thought this was common knowledge?



http://skeptikai.com/2012/07/30/does...ience-answers/



http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinio...uns/index.html

There is an interesting link in the CNN article

Maggie your data has been refuted over and over, the studies you cite proven to be false and selective.

Firearms are used over 2 million times a year to protect life and property, often without a shot being fired. In many cases, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to stop the crime(s) from occurring.

The flawed gun-grabber funded studies that continue to be cited (40x times more likely etc etc) don't help "your" side at all, it only reinforces your opposition to dig in deeper to combat the flood of lies.

[veritas]

I see, so the slippery slope only goes on way? It's absolutely a slippery slope if the Bushmaster is banned--the next thing little Johnny's bb gun is being confiscated. But of course the other way, no so much. Seems to me guns are getting more and more lethal, but that of course, that's not a slippery slope.

And btw, I would suggest a musket, the weaponry of the well regulated militia, is further removed from a Bushmaster than a Bushmaster is from a hand grenade. Uh oh, slippery slope time.....

Idiocy. Thank God this is finally being seen for what it is.

And so deranged minds are a phemon of the 21st century? Everyone back in colonial times was sweet and pure, bucolic and peaceful all around, no mental illness. What a crock, where do you get this stuff?

These comments aren't helping you. Not at all. Guns are getting more lethal? Really? The fact is that almost all gun murders occur close up, within a few feet of the victim. Any cheap handgun will do for that purpose. In the case of some of these mass shootings, all that is needed is a handgun capable of holding a 10-15 round magazine, no advanced technology required. (see VA Tech).

Next, talking about flintlocks because they happened to be the weapon of the day in 1787 adds nothing to the discussion and is irrelevant. Modern weaponry is here and isn't going away.

Lastly, I never once suggested that everyone in colonial times was peaceful and sweet. That is you projecting again so you can come back and respond to something you wish I'd said. That seems to be common in this forum and I have to waste lots of time pointing it out.

[veritas]

And the chances you can shoot yourself or a loved one are likewise 0% if you don't have a weapon in the house.

Car crashes? Jesus, you have the nerve to bring up false equivalency???

A car is useful. What is the utility of a Bushmaster?

The utility of a Bushmaster is varied. Pleasure for someone who likes to target shoot, home defense, etc. I'll take my chances on shooting myself in order to be able to protect myself. It isn't up to you to tell me I can't make the choice. For people who rattle on about choice all the time in regard to being able to terminate the unborn, you sure don't like it anywhere else.

No guns, No Large Sodas!!!

Too funny.

[ms maggie]

These comments aren't helping you. Not at all. Guns are getting more lethal? Really? The fact is that almost all gun murders occur close up, within a few feet of the victim. Any cheap handgun will do for that purpose. In the case of some of these mass shootings, all that is needed is a handgun capable of holding a 10-15 round magazine, no advanced technology required. (see VA Tech).

Next, talking about flintlocks because they happened to be the weapon of the day in 1787 adds nothing to the discussion and is irrelevant. Modern weaponry is here and isn't going away.

Lastly, I never once suggested that everyone in colonial times was peaceful and sweet. That is you projecting again so you can come back and respond to something you wish I'd said. That seems to be common in this forum and I have to waste lots of time pointing it out.

Pretty sure I don't need help. And guns are getting more lethal: six shot revolvers? Nah, high capacity pistols. Assault weapons, "pocket rockets", "vest busting" handguns like the 50 caliber S/W, 50 caliber sniper rifles capabble of penetrating armor plating--hell the industry markets this stuff as the civilian version of military weapons.

You bring up 1787 when it suits you:

What they no doubt couldn't imagine was the type of deranged minds that our modern society is breeding.

The idea that mental illness is somehow worse today than in 1787 is absurd.

I'll tell you what they couldn't imagine, they couldn't imagine the weapons we now have available to any fool.

[slapshot]

What I have an absolute certainty of is how the liberal mind works. I've been observing that for 50 years. Yours is so very typical; spouting clueless nonsense generated by emotion and debunked by reality yet demanding to run roughshod over others. A textbook case.

You have no clue about anything, let alone about my political or philosophical beliefs.

As a longtime Independent, who's voted for numerous Republican and Democratic candidates over the years, I, unlike you, weigh each issue/candidate independently. As much as you think you know me, I asure you, you don't.

But I do know this - Your are a gun nut that can't see past the muzzle on your gun. ...and are unwilling to compromise on any gun related issue. All you can do is to regurgitating the same old tired gun nut mantra - "any gun restrictions are counter productive and will have no affect."

That's utter baloney.

What seems to be disputed, by several different sources, is whether stricter gun laws reduce gun related violence...or not. There are camps on both sides of this issue, and is often the case with any of these statistical studies, it's never straight forward, with some claiming it does reduce gun violence, while others say it does not. So, the statistical evidence is not conclusive. It's a very complicated issue, so I can accept that there is no definitive answers - right now - given all the guns that are currently in circulation...not to mention that the existing laws varry drastically, from state to state (ie, it should be no surprise that someone wishing to buy a gun - whether they be a good guy, or bad - can easily drive a few miles to buy what the need in any number of nearby states.

However, what all experts do agree on, is stricter gun laws do reduce suicides and accidental shootings.

In my opinion, this is a good/fair/objective article that discusses many of these issues:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/we...anted=all&_r=0


But hey, write all you want. Knock yourself out. Scream away. Change is coming, I assure you. The American people have had enough mass shootings like this to finally DEMAND changes.. Whether any gun changes will actually lower shooting injuries or mortality rates, is anybody's guess. If it were up to me, however, I'm more in favor of levying a heafty tax on guns and ammo. May be your constitutional right, but the rest of us might as well reap some financial benefits....

[ms maggie]

The utility of a Bushmaster is varied. Pleasure for someone who likes to target shoot, home defense, etc. I'll take my chances on shooting myself in order to be able to protect myself. It isn't up to you to tell me I can't make the choice. For people who rattle on about choice all the time in regard to being able to terminate the unborn, you sure don't like it anywhere else.

No guns, No Large Sodas!!!

Too funny.

Target shoot? Now that's funny. I'm willing to sacrifice that for safety of civilians. And you want to defend your home, fine. Buy a nice normal gun. And don't pretend you don't know what the difference is.

[slapshot]

No guns, No Large Sodas!!!

Too funny.

Maybe we should have a GUN ONLY zone. Isn't there a community in Georgia that requires everyone to have a gun?

Movfe there.

[Smokey 1]

Maybe we should have a GUN ONLY zone. Isn't there a community in Georgia that requires everyone to have a gun?

Movfe there.

Why don't you address my comments to you on post #626?

[veritas]

Pretty sure I don't need help. And guns are getting more lethal: six shot revolvers? Nah, high capacity pistols. Assault weapons, "pocket rockets", "vest busting" handguns like the 50 caliber S/W, 50 caliber sniper rifles capabble of penetrating armor plating--hell the industry markets this stuff as the civilian version of military weapons.

You bring up 1787 when it suits you:



The idea that mental illness is somehow worse today than in 1787 is absurd.

I'll tell you what they couldn't imagine, they couldn't imagine the weapons we now have available to any fool.

Yea, we've had so many massacres with sniper rifles and armor piercing ammo. Why do you even bring this up? It's totally superfluous. As I said, unsophisticated weaponry is all that's needed.

What's different from 1787 is mass media, the internet, TV, movies, video games, drugs, etc, etc. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this can play heavily into pushing fragile minds over the edge.