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.
http://skeptikai.com/2012/07/30/does...ience-answers/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://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinio...uns/index.htmlA 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.
There is an interesting link in the CNN article
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?
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.
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.
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.
No guns, No Large Sodas!!!
You bring up 1787 when it suits you:
The idea that mental illness is somehow worse today than in 1787 is absurd.What they no doubt couldn't imagine was the type of deranged minds that our modern society is breeding.
I'll tell you what they couldn't imagine, they couldn't imagine the weapons we now have available to any fool.
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:
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....
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.
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278