[url]http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/shooting-instructor-dies-after-being-accidentally-shot-girl
[/url]
Thoughts on this utterly tragic event? Specifically how does one (either for/against gun rights and or control) rationalize this event from the perspective of the parents and 9 year old girl?
Wow...that changed the context, huh?
Agreed this tragedy is on the Darwin-award winning instructor. Oh and the absence of sensible laws, stifled ad nauseum by the aforementioned clan.
So what do we do? We obviously need to get rid of those pesky "fiery white rural folk" to get sensible laws. God what a horrible group of folk they are.
There's a word for statements like "fiery white rural people". Can't think of it but since you are so erudite and so much more intelligent sure you can help a poor ignorant "non rural white dude" out. I'm actually rather swarthy. I'm sure you can come up with and equally correct appellation for me.
Oh and I'm curious to what you think of all of my "fiery brown urban" friends who own guns here is S Florida.
gun sales are up (of course), but gun ownership, on a per-household basis, is down, and has been on the decline for four decades.
so that means more guns are out there, but fewer people own them, leading to a concentration of guns owned by a smaller percentage of the population. people like me like to use words like "arsenal" to paint a scary picture of gun owners who have lots of weapons. it makes us feel good, but it's also accurate in some cases (albeit hyperbolic in others).
now, we can go back and forth all day on what this concentration of gun ownership means in terms of the future of guns in America. doing so would be tremendously wasteful here (as usual).
my opinion is that the reduction in gun ownership on a per-household basis will certainly lead to a change in the culture (if it hasn't already) and ultimately, legislation. that is, of course, unless the zombie apocalypse does in fact happen and those of us who don't feel the need for a gun have a change of heart.
The 9 year old girl now knows how to use an Uzi, is acclimated with it's intended effects and has some serious street cred. Also, the instructor was clearly going for the Darwin award and the human gene pool is now slightly stronger.
The psychological effects on a nine year old of having accidently killed someone can't possibly be that bad, right?
And the law allowing for anyone outside of the military (I am not agreeing with Duned that law enforcement probably shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons either) to own/operate automatic weapons should be banned. [/quote]
I've got to disagree with that and I'll go back to the Constitution. When it was written, the Founders weren't worried about hunters' rights-that was taken as a given that nobody disagreed with. They were worried about foreign interventions, and a good number of them, starting with Jefferson, were worried about a strong, oppressive Federal government. They wanted the States to have the ability to defend themselves against the Feds, a fear clearly borne out by the Civil War. There was a long thread here recently about the increased militarization of our police departments. Is a society ruled by the police and military a likelihood in our future? I sure hope not. Is it a possibility? Who can so no? I'm not in that fringe, but I accept the worries of those who are and I believe in the original intent of the Constitution.
And the law allowing for anyone outside of the military (I am not agreeing with Duned that law enforcement probably shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons either) to own/operate automatic weapons should be banned.
I've got to disagree with that and I'll go back to the Constitution. When it was written, the Founders weren't worried about hunters' rights-that was taken as a given that nobody disagreed with. They were worried about foreign interventions, and a good number of them, starting with Jefferson, were worried about a strong, oppressive Federal government. They wanted the States to have the ability to defend themselves against the Feds, a fear clearly borne out by the Civil War. There was a long thread here recently about the increased militarization of our police departments. Is a society ruled by the police and military a likelihood in our future? I sure hope not. Is it a possibility? Who can so no? I'm not in that fringe, but I accept the worries of those who are and I believe in the original intent of the Constitution. [/quote]
So, I guess what you're saying is that a nine year old shooting someone with an UZI is the necessary cost to avoid a military police state.
And the law allowing for anyone outside of the military (I am not agreeing with Duned that law enforcement probably shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons either) to own/operate automatic weapons should be banned.
I've got to disagree with that and I'll go back to the Constitution. When it was written, the Founders weren't worried about hunters' rights-that was taken as a given that nobody disagreed with. They were worried about foreign interventions, and a good number of them, starting with Jefferson, were worried about a strong, oppressive Federal government. They wanted the States to have the ability to defend themselves against the Feds, a fear clearly borne out by the Civil War. There was a long thread here recently about the increased militarization of our police departments. Is a society ruled by the police and military a likelihood in our future? I sure hope not. Is it a possibility? Who can so no? I'm not in that fringe, but I accept the worries of those who are and I believe in the original intent of the Constitution. [/quote]
And here, ladies and gents, is a prime example of someone lacking the understanding of the intent of an automatic weapon. This is why you have such a push back from the other side. Using the Constitution to advocate for a civilian to own an automatic weapon (basically a machine gun) is idiotic and lacks any understanding of putting decisions and events into the context of time.
And if you think that the US military (and police) will ever willingly oppress its own people, then you obviously don't know the kind of people who make up these groups.
and some of you wonder why there's so much vitriol from the gun control side of this debate.
Earth to Bill in UT - no amount of firepower, no weapon, is going to enable you to stand your ground against the police or even deter them from doing what they want to do. none. zilch.
remember Waco, TX? that's exactly what would happen to you or anyone like you if you thought you could stand up to the "pigs" because you have automatic rifles.
there are many ways to check the power of the police force without arming ordinary citizens with military-style weapons.
gun sales are up (of course), but gun ownership, on a per-household basis, is down, and has been on the decline for four decades.
so that means more guns are out there, but fewer people own them, leading to a concentration of guns owned by a smaller percentage of the population. people like me like to use words like "arsenal" to paint a scary picture of gun owners who have lots of weapons. it makes us feel good, but it's also accurate in some cases (albeit hyperbolic in others).
now, we can go back and forth all day on what this concentration of gun ownership means in terms of the future of guns in America. doing so would be tremendously wasteful here (as usual).
my opinion is that the reduction in gun ownership on a per-household basis will certainly lead to a change in the culture (if it hasn't already) and ultimately, legislation. that is, of course, unless the zombie apocalypse does in fact happen and those of us who don't feel the need for a gun have a change of heart.
Do you have stats for that?
In MA gun permits (which normally indicate a new household) are on the rise 6% statewide and in double digits in many communities
More than 35,000 area residents have a “license to carry,” as a Class A permit is known.
The increase varied widely by community, with 13 registering double-digit growth, led by Bedford and Dunstable at 17 percent, and a few showed a decline in the number of Class A licenses. Other communities with at least 10 percent growth included Ashland, Bellingham, Carlisle, and Stow.
I don't have nationwide stats, I was reporting anecdotally from my firearms safety course where the NRA instructor cited their national numbers.
but I have seen other states like New Mexico report a 30% increase in year over year gun permit applications - each gun you buy does not require a permit.
Also, quotes like this don't support your "fact" either:
The study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans now have permits to carry concealed weapons, up from 4.5 million in 2007. The 146 percent increase has come even as both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/09/murder-drops-as-concealed-carry-permits-rise-claims-study/
I'm sure there is some "misinformation on this thread (as usual)" but what is it?
Gun licenses on the rise - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 11827459 RC02XX said:
And the law allowing for anyone outside of the military (I am not agreeing with Duned that law enforcement probably shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons either) to own/operate automatic weapons should be banned.
I've got to disagree with that and I'll go back to the Constitution. When it was written, the Founders weren't worried about hunters' rights-that was taken as a given that nobody disagreed with. They were worried about foreign interventions, and a good number of them, starting with Jefferson, were worried about a strong, oppressive Federal government. They wanted the States to have the ability to defend themselves against the Feds, a fear clearly borne out by the Civil War. There was a long thread here recently about the increased militarization of our police departments. Is a society ruled by the police and military a likelihood in our future? I sure hope not. Is it a possibility? Who can so no? I'm not in that fringe, but I accept the worries of those who are and I believe in the original intent of the Constitution.
And here, ladies and gents, is a prime example of someone lacking the understanding of the intent of an automatic weapon. This is why you have such a push back from the other side. Using the Constitution to advocate for a civilian to own an automatic weapon (basically a machine gun) is idiotic and lacks any understanding of putting decisions and events into the context of time.
And if you think that the US military (and police) will ever willingly oppress its own people, then you obviously don't know the kind of people who make up these groups. [/quote]
I'm precisely using the context of time. In 1790, the militias would have had to deal with soldiers carrying muskets. Today they would have to deal a slew of modern weapons. If the intent was for the people to be able to defend themselves, they have to have access to the same weaponry. And yes, I realize this can be extrapolation to ridiculous extremes. As to the military oppressing their own people, I imagine the Germans had the same lack of concern. One never knows what kind of event could transpire or what kind of leader that could bring to power. People are still basically cattle and ruled by fear in their actions.
For myself I am not a fan of handguns so I don't own one, but I don't intend to force my personal beliefs on others and try and infringe on their right to own one. I do enjoy hunting and own a shotgun, a .22 rifle and basic deer hunting rifle. I have considered getting a .22 handgun to carry with me when I hike in the woods because we have a lot of copperheads, but so far haven't pulled the trigger on that decision (ba-dum ching).
There are many benefits of teaching children the skills of hunting and fishing and if done properly and with adult supervision they can safely handle a gun at that age.
I can multitask :)
Ugh...I guess I can't argue against stupid. Somehow because the Germans were able to be subverted by the Nazi party to make the Jews and other minorities the scapegoats for their ills, we have to fear the same today, huh?
You are exactly the people that make Pork and Beans' argument more valid. Seriously, are you even sure you know what the hell you are talking about? This isn't the 1790s United States or the 1930s Germany. This is the 2010s United States where our people are better educated and more informed with far greater sense of self, which are the ultimate panacea against an establishment of a police state.
sorry, but none of what you just wrote contradicts the point i raised. you cited evidence of increased license applications in two states (acknowledging that you don't have national data) as well as increased applications for concealed carry licenses. while that data would be considered in the grand scheme of things, it's not indicative of an overall upswing in ownership on a per household basis, so i'm not even sure why you raised it.
it's funny, do an internet search for "gun ownership by household" just as an experiment. humor me.
the first two results are from the NY Times (gun ownership by household on the decline), and Breitbart (gun ownership by household on the rise). but if you actually look into the stats, the NY Times article is, by far, much more accurate.
basically you're looking at gun ownership per household at about 50-55% of all households in the 1970s, declined to about 35% by 2012, and is now back up to about 40% in 2014.
so yeah, they're both right, but they're also both painting the picture they want to paint, according to their agendas.
overall, however, we are in the midst of a substantial decline in gun ownership on a per-household basis in the last 40 years, with a little blip of an increase in the past two years or so.
Quote:
I'm sure there is some "misinformation on this thread (as usual)" but what is it? Gun licenses on the rise - ( New Window )
sorry, but none of what you just wrote contradicts the point i raised. you cited evidence of increased license applications in two states (acknowledging that you don't have national data) as well as increased applications for concealed carry licenses. while that data would be considered in the grand scheme of things, it's not indicative of an overall upswing in ownership on a per household basis, so i'm not even sure why you raised it.
it's funny, do an internet search for "gun ownership by household" just as an experiment. humor me.
the first two results are from the NY Times (gun ownership by household on the decline), and Breitbart (gun ownership by household on the rise). but if you actually look into the stats, the NY Times article is, by far, much more accurate.
basically you're looking at gun ownership per household at about 50-55% of all households in the 1970s, declined to about 35% by 2012, and is now back up to about 40% in 2014.
so yeah, they're both right, but they're also both painting the picture they want to paint, according to their agendas.
overall, however, we are in the midst of a substantial decline in gun ownership on a per-household basis in the last 40 years, with a little blip of an increase in the past two years or so.
Basically it was the recency I was referring to not decade long trends, so I didn't mean to argue that. And possibly propaganda or real fear, but people are afraid the process and qualifications to procure guns and ammunition will be made more restrictive, so where there is a surge that's been given as a reason why. People want to be licensed before the process changes.
I believe this is probably true.
50% of households owned guns in 1972, or approximately 33.3 million households.
In 2012, that number declined to 32% of households, or approximately 39.2 million households, so there are nearly 6 million (5.8) more households claiming gun ownership than four decades ago.
The rate of household ownership has declined (though it moved back up in '13, I believe), but more households own guns now than four decades ago.
gun sales are up (of course), but gun ownership, on a per-household basis, is down, and has been on the decline for four decades.
so that means more guns are out there, but fewer people own them
Funny, if you were aware that the rate of increase in households (not population, different things), was greater than than the decline in ownership rates, you could never have written "but fewer people own them".
I was left two choices:
1. you were unaware of the underlying dynamic, which I sought to correct to enhance the debate and provide some granularity in polite fashion;
2. you were aware and deliberately misrepresented it to suit an agenda.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought you wouldn't lie to support a point. My mistake.
you then took a snippet of that argument as a means to attack the entire thing, which is par for the course for a guy like you.
thanks for contributing nothing, as usual.
What you did, out of ignorance, was incorrectly extrapolate a rate to absolute numbers (fewer people own them) and used that as a basis for some "arsenal" argument. Which may actually be the case, but we certainly have no way of knowing based on your post.
Are you saying your point re: arsenals isn't worth debating?
Try to stay focused, and here's a hint, it's OK to be wrong. Everyone knows it, your deflecting and insults doesn't do anything to change it.
not worth my time.
Quote:
I'm precisely using the context of time. In 1790, the militias would have had to deal with soldiers carrying muskets. Today they would have to deal a slew of modern weapons. If the intent was for the people to be able to defend themselves, they have to have access to the same weaponry. And yes, I realize this can be extrapolation to ridiculous extremes. As to the military oppressing their own people, I imagine the Germans had the same lack of concern. One never knows what kind of event could transpire or what kind of leader that could bring to power. People are still basically cattle and ruled by fear in their actions.
Ugh...I guess I can't argue against stupid. Somehow because the Germans were able to be subverted by the Nazi party to make the Jews and other minorities the scapegoats for their ills, we have to fear the same today, huh?
You are exactly the people that make Pork and Beans' argument more valid. Seriously, are you even sure you know what the hell you are talking about? This isn't the 1790s United States or the 1930s Germany. This is the 2010s United States where our people are better educated and more informed with far greater sense of self, which are the ultimate panacea against an establishment of a police state.
A perfect example of how people don't learn from history. I think it's time for me to bow out. Gotta take my Stupid Pill in 5 mintues and I never remember where I left them :)
I admitted I was wrong earlier :)
And I agree, Rob. I was actually curious to see M in CT's response. Nothing of value was added and after you respectfully made a very fair point.
Quote:
even shown to have made an incorrect statement, a poster will dodge, deflect and insult rather than admit error, taking the discussion on a tangent and seeing the thread devolve.
I admitted I was wrong earlier :)
And I agree, Rob. I was actually curious to see M in CT's response. Nothing of value was added and after you respectfully made a very fair point.
I know you did, thank you.
I tried, but I suspect all my reward will be is another insult. It's a pattern with some posters...
And that is one of the most overused cliches..."don't learn from history."
It's one thing to learn from history, it's another to analyze different aspects of past events and put it into proper context based on time and situation before you actually learn anything from it. But since your level of analysis has been regularly proven to be weak, it doesn't surprise me that you would use such a cliche as basis for your argument.
Quote:
In comment 11827549 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
In comment 11827459 RC02XX said:
And the law allowing for anyone outside of the military (I am not agreeing with Duned that law enforcement probably shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons either) to own/operate automatic weapons should be banned.
I've got to disagree with that and I'll go back to the Constitution. When it was written, the Founders weren't worried about hunters' rights-that was taken as a given that nobody disagreed with. They were worried about foreign interventions, and a good number of them, starting with Jefferson, were worried about a strong, oppressive Federal government. They wanted the States to have the ability to defend themselves against the Feds, a fear clearly borne out by the Civil War. There was a long thread here recently about the increased militarization of our police departments. Is a society ruled by the police and military a likelihood in our future? I sure hope not. Is it a possibility? Who can so no? I'm not in that fringe, but I accept the worries of those who are and I believe in the original intent of the Constitution.
And here, ladies and gents, is a prime example of someone lacking the understanding of the intent of an automatic weapon. This is why you have such a push back from the other side. Using the Constitution to advocate for a civilian to own an automatic weapon (basically a machine gun) is idiotic and lacks any understanding of putting decisions and events into the context of time.
And if you think that the US military (and police) will ever willingly oppress its own people, then you obviously don't know the kind of people who make up these groups.
I'm precisely using the context of time. In 1790, the militias would have had to deal with soldiers carrying muskets. Today they would have to deal a slew of modern weapons. If the intent was for the people to be able to defend themselves, they have to have access to the same weaponry. And yes, I realize this can be extrapolation to ridiculous extremes. As to the military oppressing their own people, I imagine the Germans had the same lack of concern. One never knows what kind of event could transpire or what kind of leader that could bring to power. People are still basically cattle and ruled by fear in their actions. [/quote]
Mixed feelings. On the one hand, this isn't Nazi Germany. On the other hand, it could certainly be argued that one of the reasons the Founding generation countenanced such a right was because they feared an overbearing government. When people tell me that part of the reason they're pro-2nd Amendment is because they "think a government should fear its people" my initial reaction is to break out the tin foil, but at a certain level you can understand the argument - even if you dismiss it. Simply voting out of office a government that has been tyrannical to you may be time-consuming (if it's even possible) and whatever harm you're trying to prevent may have already been done. Filing a complaint or pushing for civil remedies may seem equally insufficient. So while I think the argument is wrong, or at least one I can't accept, there is substance to it.
Duned...you're a better man than me when it comes to having the patience and showing more understanding to people for their ideas and views. You've shown similar patience and understanding to Sonic Youth in the other thread and now to Bill and what I believe is a tired cliched argument when it comes to the application of the 2nd Amendment in this gun debate. I'm just not so patient when it comes to such drivel...:)
Well, now that you're an officer, I expect more from you...;)
Quote:
most of those conversations have occurred when my opportunities for exit are limited.
Well, now that you're an officer, I expect more from you...;)
Yes, now I just leave. "Gotta go to regiment..."
Well, the paycheck is nice, especially when you're an O-2E (and even better when you're an O-3E).
And yeah, I would much rather be doing that as well, but I don't mind the air conditioner and the comfortable chair during my drill weekends.
Yeah, had to turn in my blue cord and everything. Still enjoy peers nearing retirement age with oak leaf clusters on their chest asking me what "that badge" (my CIB) is.
Which Mike?
I could never understand the criteria for the CIB, but the same can be said for the CAR in the Marine Corps.
I'm sure I told you about my conversation with an Army Lt back in Ramadi regarding his soldiers randomly running up to the roof of their COP to fire off their rifles at nothing during a firefight just so that they can qualify for the CIB. Maybe it was because they were in their final weeks of deployment as a national guards unit, so they didn't want to actually participate in the firefight, but why not at least shoot towards the direction of the enemy instead of into the air? I gave that stupid Lt an earful after the incident, but I'm sure he didn't give a fuck.
I have now lost all respect for you :-)
Quote:
Yeah, had to turn in my blue cord and everything. Still enjoy peers nearing retirement age with oak leaf clusters on their chest asking me what "that badge" (my CIB) is.
I could never understand the criteria for the CIB, but the same can be said for the CAR in the Marine Corps.
I'm sure I told you about my conversation with an Army Lt back in Ramadi regarding his soldiers randomly running up to the roof of their COP to fire off their rifles at nothing during a firefight just so that they can qualify for the CIB. Maybe it was because they were in their final weeks of deployment as a national guards unit, so they didn't want to actually participate in the firefight, but why not at least shoot towards the direction of the enemy instead of into the air? I gave that stupid Lt an earful after the incident, but I'm sure he didn't give a fuck.
Yeah I've seen equally shitty ones, blanketing FOBs for things with minute kill radii, imagined sniper fire buttressed by old chips and cracks. But my favorite was actually a Navy O-5 (doctor in our FOB aid station) hot on the trail of whatever their badge or ribbon is called. In the middle of a mortar barrage he runs outside with his 9MM and starts shooting at the mountain, probably 2 clicks away. After it's all over he tries to get his minions to write supporting documentation for it and they all say no.
I have now lost all respect for you :-)
I got tired of the Sunday afternoon at the armory bit, where the senior NCOs would find incredibly stupid busy work like edging the parking lot with shovels. I was hoping for a stateside mission (as opposed to just training) and I thought I could get that with JAG but thus far I really haven't. Oh well, only nine years to go.