Stephen King weighs in on gun control

[squealpiggy]

I believe that about as much your "I don't watch Youtube videos."

That's good because I don't watch youtube videos when presented in lieu of an argument.

So I am less likely to have my home robbed than shoot someone accidentally?

Actually yes. If by "robbed" you mean broken into with the intention of committing a violent crime including murder, rape, robbery, assault or kidnapping. You would probably try to expand the definition to include all property crime and all violent crime as well, because this is a frequent marketing tactic used by the gun lobby.

But the fact is that as a gun owner you are more likely to injure or kill someone accidentally than you are to use your weapon legitimately defending your home from a violent attack.

In 2011 the homicide rate was 4.7 per 100,000 people in the United States. The firearms death rate was more than double, 10.3 per 100,000. Conclusion? You're more likely to be killed by firearms than you are to be the victim of a homicide!

Ah so now you know who Dianne Feinstein is? When that video was shot she had just helped lead the push for the "assault" weapons ban and in a moment of candor, let her true intentions be known.

You mean you found a video that took one of her comments out of context and now accuse her of being Hitler?

Now she is pushing, has in fact authored, a far more draconian piece of legislation. One that proposes to ban the manufacture, sale and transfer of 150 specific weapons and a whole slew more of types that accept a magazine, even if it is less than 10 rounds. Only this one is permanent, doesn't have an expiration like her last ineffectual law.

Good. Maybe a permanent law will have a positive effect on American gun culture.

I find the idea that a government could never turn tyrannical to be ludicrous.

It's unlikely that without some external factor causing a major instability in the political system that a formerly democratic nation will suddenly become some autocratic regime. The sort of creeping authoritarianism much adored by the conspiracy set has never resulted in a dramatic change to style of government Every major dictatorship I am aware of came about because of some sort of popular movement.

My particular firearms are for defense, plinking and hunting. In that order. None of those scary "assault" types.

And yet you still trot out the lines delivered to you by the marketing department of the gun lobby. "I must defend against the tyranny of tin cans and bottles". Having a gun for target shooting and hunting is permitted and welcomed in Canada. Having a gun for defense is simply bowing to marketing by gun manufacturers but if it makes you feel safer and you store them properly instead of leaving them loaded in your top drawer or something then whatever. You're highly unlikely to ever use guns in self defense anyway so as long as you're not suicidal, don't go through a major angry domestic breakdown and don't store your weapons carelessly you're probably not going to do any harm.

The Constitution gives me the right to own firearms, more specifically restricts the Federal Government from taking them away. What I choose to use them for is my business.

Tell me again about the "well regulated militia" you are a member of.

I suggest you look up the word infringe.

So you are suggesting that personal ownership of nuclear bombs should be permitted? If the right to "bear arms" shall not "be infringed" then according to the letter of the law the type of arms owned cannot be restricted in any way. If you state that nukes, long range bombers, attack helicopters, intercontinental ballistic missiles, MANPADS, landmines or predator drones with hellfire missiles are restricted from private ownership then you are, by definition, infringing to some extent on the right to bear arms.

If you agree that private ownership of ICMBs should be outlawed then you agree that the right to bear arms should be "infringed" and we're arguing about where the line is drawn.

Forgetting for a minute that the militia included everyone back in those days, lets not pretend that what comes after the comma refers exclusively to what precedes it. Or what the Supreme Court has determined that it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

So there is precedent in the Supreme Court for restricting weapons or requiring registration of firearms of a specific type.

Yet it's still significantly higher than those killed in spree shootings.

Spree shootings start the conversation. But the conversation should be about statistics, not anecdotes.

You're rambling again.

Anecdotes. Statistically meaningless.

Are you saying that a majority of Germans elected Hitler to be their dictator?

Hitler became Chancellor of a coalition government by being popular. The Reichstag fire was blamed on communists and Hitler assumed power as Fuhrer by winning five sixths of the vote in Parliament. Hitler did load the dice as communists were banned from parliament and some other left wing opponents were restricted from taking part in the vote by the same anti-Communist legislation, but the bill was still passed by almost 500 votes to less than 100 votes.

Hitler was popular. The Nazis were a popular movement. The notion that if the German citizenry had access to weapons Hitler would never have come to power is a fantasy.

Nonsense.

Then show me an example of an unpopular dictator rising to power against the will of the people.

Which is why our Constitution is so important, it prohibits tyranny of the majority. Like Apartheid, for instance.

What does apartheid have to do with the tyranny of the majority?

Who's drawing a line?

You did. You said you were against government imposing its will on you but the government imposing its will on people in relation to slavery was OK.

An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2472275.html

That's a state restriction. I believe the Supreme Court allows for states to enact their own regulations in relation to firearms. Which is why in Nevada I can shoot fully automatic weapons yet in California I'm restricted to semi-auto.

What do you think I mean?

You spend a lot of time talking about constitutional rights, yet you keep bringing this "our women and girls and children and junk should be able to protect themselves from the lawless hordes of shooty rape-men" despite the fact that self defense is not mentioned as part of the constitutional amendment. You will NEVER use any gun you own for self defense. The same goes for almost everyone who legally owns a gun and is not involved in either crime or law enforcement.

You can talk about self defense all you like but as a private citizen, even in the US, unless you are involved in criminal activity, you will not use a gun to prevent yourself from being a victim of a crime. Ever.

A particularly powerful piece of testimony, for those that watch Youtube videos.

This is anecdotal. Anecdotes are not evidence. Testimony, when discussing policy, is meaningless.

[2shameless]

That's good because I don't watch youtube videos when presented in lieu of an argument.

But as you know, it wasn't in lieu of an argument, it was direct evidence obliterating your attempt at one.

Actually yes. If by "robbed" you mean broken into with the intention of committing a violent crime including murder, rape, robbery, assault or kidnapping. You would probably try to expand the definition to include all property crime and all violent crime as well, because this is a frequent marketing tactic used by the gun lobby.

Actually no, by either definition. Of course (as you well know) it is impossible to determine intent.

But the fact is that as a gun owner you are more likely to injure or kill someone accidentally than you are to use your weapon legitimately defending your home from a violent attack.

Citation needed.

In 2011 the homicide rate was 4.7 per 100,000 people in the United States. The firearms death rate was more than double, 10.3 per 100,000. Conclusion? You're more likely to be killed by firearms than you are to be the victim of a homicide!

Which of course includes bystanders accidentally shot by police. Conclusion? Disarm the police!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/ny...anted=all&_r=0

You mean you found a video that took one of her comments out of context and now accuse her of being Hitler?

Out of context how exactly? You said "no one wants to take your guns." The woman leading the charge in the Senate has admitted as to her intentions. Now you want to change the meaning of your statement to "no one wants to take all your guns."

Good. Maybe a permanent law will have a positive effect on American gun culture.

A 10 year law having no effect means a permanent law will have a positive one?

It's unlikely that without some external factor causing a major instability in the political system that a formerly democratic nation will suddenly become some autocratic regime. The sort of creeping authoritarianism much adored by the conspiracy set has never resulted in a dramatic change to style of government Every major dictatorship I am aware of came about because of some sort of popular movement.

Tyranny is still tyranny whether it come about through a "popular" movement or not.

And yet you still trot out the lines delivered to you by the marketing department of the gun lobby. "I must defend against the tyranny of tin cans and bottles". Having a gun for target shooting and hunting is permitted and welcomed in Canada. Having a gun for defense is simply bowing to marketing by gun manufacturers but if it makes you feel safer and you store them properly instead of leaving them loaded in your top drawer or something then whatever. You're highly unlikely to ever use guns in self defense anyway so as long as you're not suicidal, don't go through a major angry domestic breakdown and don't store your weapons carelessly you're probably not going to do any harm.

You're rambling again. You have already admitted that you would own a handgun but not for the hassle, safes on every floor, permits, etc. Which also makes this post hypocritical.

[IMG]http://cdn.*****************/instances/400x/33909084.jpg[/IMG]

Tell me again about the "well regulated militia" you are a member of.

Tell me again how the part that comes after the comma relates only to that which is before it.

If you agree that private ownership of ICMBs should be outlawed then you agree that the right to bear arms should be "infringed" and we're arguing about where the line is drawn.

I think the line is quite fine where it is, thank you very much.

So there is precedent in the Supreme Court for restricting weapons or requiring registration of firearms of a specific type.

Yes things like sawed off shotguns and fully automatic weapons are restricted and most people do not have a problem with that because these weapons don't have any other use in defense or hunting. We tried an "assault" weapons ban and it didn't work.

Spree shootings start the conversation. But the conversation should be about statistics, not anecdotes.

I'm more likely to win the lottery than be killed in a spree shooting.

Anecdotes. Statistically meaningless.

Not to the woman who watched her parents gun down before her eyes and was powerless to do anything about it because of gun legislation.

Hitler was popular. The Nazis were a popular movement. The notion that if the German citizenry had access to weapons Hitler would never have come to power is a fantasy.

I doubt 6 million Jews would've perished had they had access to a means to protect themselves. At the very least they would've taken some Nazis with them.

Then show me an example of an unpopular dictator rising to power against the will of the people.

What is this "will of the people" nonsense? You seem to excuse Hitler's actions because he was "part of a popular uprising" or was somehow democratically elected by a majority (he wasn't.) I do not.

What does apartheid have to do with the tyranny of the majority?

The majority of whites voted for oppressive laws against blacks, who weren't allowed a vote at all.

You did. You said you were against government imposing its will on you but the government imposing its will on people in relation to slavery was OK.

AKA used that as an example of tyranny. As I said, I do not consider a government telling it's citizens not to own people as tyranny. As to whether I'm against a government imposing its will on me, we have a constitution that prevents them from doing so.

That's a state restriction. I believe the Supreme Court allows for states to enact their own regulations in relation to firearms. Which is why in Nevada I can shoot fully automatic weapons yet in California I'm restricted to semi-auto.

The average citizen can shoot a fully automatic weapon in Nevada? Since when?

You spend a lot of time talking about constitutional rights, yet you keep bringing this "our women and girls and children and junk should be able to protect themselves from the lawless hordes of shooty rape-men" despite the fact that self defense is not mentioned as part of the constitutional amendment.

The Constitution give Americans the right to own guns. The arguments behind that amendment are clearly argued in the Federalist Papers. Tens of millions of Americans, men and women (children are not allowed to own firearms,) use them for self defense. Far more than do for hunting, which New York Governor Cuomo implies that the 2nd Amendment is all about. Detestable trivialization of rape BTW.

You will NEVER use any gun you own for self defense. The same goes for almost everyone who legally owns a gun and is not involved in either crime or law enforcement.

You can talk about self defense all you like but as a private citizen, even in the US, unless you are involved in criminal activity, you will not use a gun to prevent yourself from being a victim of a crime. Ever.

Utter nonsense.

This is anecdotal. Anecdotes are not evidence. Testimony, when discussing policy, is meaningless.

But you're the one pushing this snake oil

You will NEVER use any gun you own for self defense.

Emphasis on the word never. The same Wiki source you used for the murder stats above also gives two different estimates for times in a single year that guns are used in self defense, 1.5 million and 2.5 million. Which you dismiss out of hand because they don't fit your agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

[squealpiggy]

But as you know, it wasn't in lieu of an argument, it was direct evidence obliterating your attempt at one.

If it was then it could be summarised by the arguer.

Actually no, by either definition. Of course (as you well know) it is impossible to determine intent.

That will likely be the defense of Phillip Sailors on trial for the murder of Rodrigo Diaz who was gunned down for going to the wrong address.

Citation needed.

The homicide rate for the US in 2011 was 4.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. The rate of deaths from gunshot wounds in the same period was 10.3 per 100,000. You are twice as likely to die from gunshot wounds as you are to be murdered by any means. What does that tell you?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...-the-u.s.-2011

Which of course includes bystanders accidentally shot by police. Conclusion? Disarm the police!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/ny...anted=all&_r=0

390 felons killed with firearms by law enforcement in 2011.

Total gun deaths 32,163

Out of context how exactly? You said "no one wants to take your guns." The woman leading the charge in the Senate has admitted as to her intentions. Now you want to change the meaning of your statement to "no one wants to take all your guns."

She "admitted to her intentions" 18 years ago! I noticed you glossed over that.

A 10 year law having no effect means a permanent law will have a positive one?

The ten year law was limited to specific models of weapons. This new proposal would severely limit mag capacity on future sales of guns and maybe after another decade the country will be used to the notion that they can't buy a 100 round drum for "self defense".

Tyranny is still tyranny whether it come about through a "popular" movement or not.

You're ignoring the point. You have this brainless fantasy that tyrants would never become tyrants if only the population had pop-guns to protect them. This is a fantasy. The fact is that tyrants are popular. There's no brave citizens using their guns to fight tyrants. The brace citizen use their guns to install the tyrants!

You're rambling again. You have already admitted that you would own a handgun but not for the hassle, safes on every floor, permits, etc. Which also makes this post hypocritical.

It doesn't make my post hypocritical at all. In Canada we don't suffer from the gun insanity to the same degree. There are rules about storage of guns and ammo, you're pretty much not allowed to use guns for self defense, you don't get concealed carry laws (in fact for restricted weapons like handguns or semi-auto rifles you need to have a second permit that states exactly where you cant t ransport the weapon to and from)and you need to be vetted by the RCMP to get a license. Your spouse (or ex!) is interviewed about your character, and your medical records are released.

In short you don't have a critical mass where any old nutter can waltz into a gun shop and buy a murder weapon. You have to prove that you will be responsible with a gun, instead of relying on the state to prove that you won't.

You want evidence that Americans are irrational about guns? Just look at the reaction to the news that certain magazine sizes will be restricted in the future.

Even proposing that guns should be licensed and registered in the same way that cars are sparks a collective tantrum of indignant ammo-buying.

[IMG]http://cdn.*****************/instances/400x/33909084.jpg[/IMG]

Let me know when someone dies because someone extinguishes a non-burning piece of wood just in case it was on fire.

Tell me again how the part that comes after the comma relates only to that which is before it.

You want a grammar lesson?

[dependent clause], [independent clause]

In other words the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed because a well regulated militia is essential. At least this demonstrates that the Bill of Rights is ambiguous and poorly conceived.

I think the line is quite fine where it is, thank you very much.

The parents of twenty children murdered at Sandy Hook would disagree. But at least we agree that there is a line and that the existence of a line is reasonable.

Yes things like sawed off shotguns and fully automatic weapons are restricted and most people do not have a problem with that because these weapons don't have any other use in defense or hunting. We tried an "assault" weapons ban and it didn't work.

The argument was that there is precedence for restrictions of certain types and modifications of weapons. You mentioned the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of selected restrictions on weapon modifications and ammunition types.

I'm more likely to win the lottery than be killed in a spree shooting.

You're also more likely to be killed with a firearm than you are to kill someone in self defense, an interesting statistic you can find by comparing the total firearms deaths (~30,000 for 2011) with total justifiable homicides involving citizens (~200 for 2011).

Not to the woman who watched her parents gun down before her eyes and was powerless to do anything about it because of gun legislation.

You're more likely to win the lottery than you are to be powerless as you watch your parents gunned down in front of you.

I doubt 6 million Jews would've perished had they had access to a means to protect themselves. At the very least they would've taken some Nazis with them.

More fantasy. If you honestly think that then you understand very little about human nature. Remember that 6 million Jews represented the deaths from the whole of Europe. In Germany in 1933 there were about half a million Jews from a population of 67 million. That's less than 1% of the population. There wasn't going to be a fight.

What is this "will of the people" nonsense? You seem to excuse Hitler's actions because he was "part of a popular uprising" or was somehow democratically elected by a majority (he wasn't.) I do not.

If you think I am excusing the actions of the Nazis because he was popular then you're a ******. I suspect instead you are attempting to poison the well by hinting that I'm a sympathiser of the Nazis. I don't think that you believe that about me.

I'm making the point that Hitler was popular. He didn't gang up with half a dozen of his Nazi chums and take over Germany much to the consternation of the unarmed populace. He rose to a position of influence in the German parliament on a wave of popular enthusiasm, and seized power in a very political coup.

The majority of whites voted for oppressive laws against blacks, who weren't allowed a vote at all.

Under Apartheid the blacks were the majority. Apartheid had nothing to do with tyranny of the majority.

[squealpiggy]

AKA used that as an example of tyranny. As I said, I do not consider a government telling it's citizens not to own people as tyranny.

But the Founding Fathers did, as did the Secessionists in the Civil War.

As to whether I'm against a government imposing its will on me, we have a constitution that prevents them from doing so.

The government imposes its will on you all the time. It's one of the jobs of government. They impose the will of the people on everyone so that everyone can more or less get along. That's why you can't drive on whatever side of the road you want and can't go as fast as you want, it's why you're not allowed to put landmines around your property, why you're not allowed to jump in your own plane and fly across the country without charting a course and getting clearance from air traffic control, why you can't divert a river to go past your house, why you can't go out without a permit and kill all of the bears near you or introduce elephants into the wild.

Mostly these are impositions you don't care about. Some of them you might care about. It just depends on how important they are to you. For example a lot of people found that the imposition of abolition of slaves was so objectionable they went to war over it.

The average citizen can shoot a fully automatic weapon in Nevada? Since when?

http://thegunstorelasvegas.com/gun-rentals

The Constitution give Americans the right to own guns. The arguments behind that amendment are clearly argued in the Federalist Papers. Tens of millions of Americans, men and women (children are not allowed to own firearms,) use them for self defense. Far more than do for hunting, which New York Governor Cuomo implies that the 2nd Amendment is all about.

Saying that the 2nd amendment is about hunting is even wronger than saying it's about self defense. The second amendment specifically mentions militias, and that is all. Not self defense and not hunting.

I would also like to point out that while you claim that "tens of millions of Americans" use guns for self defense, it's obvious that in reality guns are barely used in self defense situations, as evidenced by the statistics on use of firearms in self defense situations. 201 incidents of justifiable homicide in 2011 involving non-law enforcement. Out of "tens of millions" of gun owners.

Detestable trivialization of rape BTW.

More well-poisoning I see. My position is that it trivialises rape far more when you use the claim that your family could be raped by intruders in order to justify your gun hobby.

Utter nonsense.

I suppose that's true. I would never say "You will NEVER win the lottery" and you're only slightly less likely to use guns for self defense than you are to win the lottery.

But you're the one pushing this snake oil

Gun manufacturers sell fantasy. They sell the fantasy that ownership of guns makes you safe. Not only safe, it makes you a badass. Something that the bad guys fear. Guns are marketed in the US by appealing to anxiety, on the basis of the claim that they allow you to relinquish some of the power you feel you lack.

In short the gun lobby wishes to make you feel powerless (the bad guys are on every corner, they're breaking into your houses, they're murdering your family, alarms don't stop them, locks won't hold them, the cops will take too long) and then saying that you can regain that power if you buy their product. Take a step back and see how absurd it is.

Owning guns does not make you safer. 30,000 gun deaths compared to 200 justifiable homicides.

Emphasis on the word never. The same Wiki source you used for the murder stats above also gives two different estimates for times in a single year that guns are used in self defense, 1.5 million and 2.5 million. Which you dismiss out of hand because they don't fit your agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

"Studies place the instances of guns used in personal defense as low as 65 thousand times per year, and as high as 2.5 million times per year. Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year, but noted this was likely to be an overestimate."

"Between 1987 and 1990, McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period).[70] This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period,"

Oh and the 2.5 million incident figure?

" Hemenway considered that the Kleck figure was inconsistent with other known statistics for crime, citing that Kleck's figures apparently showed that guns were used many times more often for self-defense in burglaries than there were reported incidents of burglaries of premises whose occupants were awake and armed with firearms."

When you're citing something you should probably try reading it first.

[Bretty Poy32]

i saw stephen king in sons of anarchy

[2shameless]

If it was then it could be summarised by the arguer.

Why would there be a need to summarize a 44 second video?

That will likely be the defense of Phillip Sailors on trial for the murder of Rodrigo Diaz who was gunned down for going to the wrong address.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

The homicide rate for the US in 2011 was 4.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. The rate of deaths from gunshot wounds in the same period was 10.3 per 100,000. You are twice as likely to die from gunshot wounds as you are to be murdered by any means. What does that tell you?

It most certainly doesn't tell me this

But the fact is that as a gun owner you are more likely to injure or kill someone accidentally than you are to use your weapon legitimately defending your home from a violent attack.

Like you pretended it did.

390 felons killed with firearms by law enforcement in 2011.
Total gun deaths 32,163

You seem to be under the misconception that a weapon is only legitimately used for self defense if someone is killed.

She "admitted to her intentions" 18 years ago! I noticed you glossed over that.

We've been over this. She admitted her intentions when pushing a far less draconian piece of gun legislation than she's pushing now.

The ten year law was limited to specific models of weapons. This new proposal would severely limit mag capacity on future sales of guns and maybe after another decade the country will be used to the notion that they can't buy a 100 round drum for "self defense".

At least pretend to know what you're talking about. The Clinton 10 year ban also limited magazines to 10 rounds.

It doesn't make my post hypocritical at all.

Of course it does. You admitted you would own a handgun if not for the mess you have to go through to get one.

You want evidence that Americans are irrational about guns? Just look at the reaction to the news that certain magazine sizes will be restricted in the future.

I think you mean might, not will. As long as we still have a 1st Amendment, Americans will push back against needless, useless regulations. Good for them.

Even proposing that guns should be licensed and registered in the same way that cars are sparks a collective tantrum of indignant ammo-buying.

Licensing and registering leads to a list of all legal gun owners and the weapons they own. Some people want to avoid such a list.

Let me know when someone dies because someone extinguishes a non-burning piece of wood just in case it was on fire.

The average wait time for 911 is a half an hour in Detroit. 0 gun shops, 0 places you can buy guns. Some of the toughest gun laws in the country. Oh and over 500 murders last year, many of them children.

You want a grammar lesson?

[dependent clause], [independent clause]

In other words the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed because a well regulated militia is essential. At least this demonstrates that the Bill of Rights is ambiguous and poorly conceived.

Again the Supreme Court disagrees and the Federalist papers list the arguments used in creating all of the Amendments to the Constitution.

The parents of twenty children murdered at Sandy Hook would disagree.

Are you going to pretend that the shooter wouldn't have used the two pistols he was carrying? Oh and not this parent of a Sandy Hook child:

You're also more likely to be killed with a firearm than you are to kill someone in self defense, an interesting statistic you can find by comparing the total firearms deaths (~30,000 for 2011)

Most of those as you know were suicides.

with total justifiable homicides involving citizens (~200 for 2011).

You're not trying to pretend that there were only 200 instances of legitimate self defense are you?

You're more likely to win the lottery than you are to be powerless as you watch your parents gunned down in front of you.

So you pick and choose which statistically impossible things to use in pushing your agenda and which to completely ignore. Fine. But don't make absurd statements like "you will never need a firearm to protect yourself. Ever." And expect to be taken seriously.

Under Apartheid the blacks were the majority. Apartheid had nothing to do with tyranny of the majority.

Nice job ignoring everything I posted.

[2shameless]

But the Founding Fathers did

A few months ago you were saying that the Founders went to war over a 1% tax. Now you're saying it was over the right to own slaves (back at a time when Britain still owned them.) Which is it?

http://thegunstorelasvegas.com/gun-rentals

Outrageous rentals at a secure location aside, it is extremely difficult for the average American to own a fully automatic weapon in any state.

Saying that the 2nd amendment is about hunting is even wronger than saying it's about self defense. The second amendment specifically mentions militias, and that is all. Not self defense and not hunting.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason coauthor of the 2nd Amendment.

I would also like to point out that while you claim that "tens of millions of Americans" use guns for self defense, it's obvious that in reality guns are barely used in self defense situations, as evidenced by the statistics on use of firearms in self defense situations. 201 incidents of justifiable homicide in 2011 involving non-law enforcement. Out of "tens of millions" of gun owners.

Claiming that the only people with a legitimate claim on self defense are the people who killed someone is beyond absurd.

More well-poisoning I see. My position is that it trivialises rape far more when you use the claim that your family could be raped by intruders in order to justify your gun hobby.

100 thousand women are raped in the US every year. I believe that number would be far lower if more women carried a gun in their purse.

I suppose that's true. I would never say "You will NEVER win the lottery" and you're only slightly less likely to use guns for self defense than you are to win the lottery.

More sheer, utter nonsense.
Followed by further rambling nonsense.

Owning guns does not make you safer. 30,000 gun deaths compared to 200 justifiable homicides.

Regurgitating this little stat makes you look like an idiot.

Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year, but noted this was likely to be an overestimate."

The US Department of Justice estimated about 1.5 million times per year guns are used in personal defense. But you're running with this 200 figure because that's how many people were killed. Well done.

[Daniel Alpha]

[squealpiggy]

Why would there be a need to summarize a 44 second video?

To prevent me from having to watch it. It takes less than 44 seconds to state "In this video she indicates that she wanted to take all of the guns" and then post a link.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

This example was an illustration of the circumstances in which somebody can find themselves gunning down an innocent person because of paranoia. This was not my evidence that owning guns is dangerous, the evidence that I presented was the fact that there are more than twice as many people die each year from gunshots than are actually murdered.

It most certainly doesn't tell me this

2011 had a recorded ~800 people dying from accidental gunshot wounds and ~200 people dying at the hands of citizens recorded as "justifiable homicide". Four times as many people dying as a result of accidents than were killed in self defense.

You seem to be under the misconception that a weapon is only legitimately used for self defense if someone is killed.

You specifically mentioned that people might be hit accidentally by law enforcement bullets and sarcastically suggested disarming law enforcement officers. I was demonstrating that the total number of justifiable homicides using firearms by law enforcement in 2011 was 390. It's a drop in the bucket compared to how dangerous firearms are and how dangerous gun culture is.

We've been over this. She admitted her intentions when pushing a far less draconian piece of gun legislation than she's pushing now.

So your best piece of evidence that "they want to take (all) your guns" is an out-of-context 18 year old quote from a senator. Noted.

At least pretend to know what you're talking about. The Clinton 10 year ban also limited magazines to 10 rounds.

But it allowed the sale of high capacity magazines that were "factory standard" before the ban went into place. And the ban only lasted ten years.

Of course it does. You admitted you would own a handgun if not for the mess you have to go through to get one.

I'm no opposed to gun ownership. I just think that Americans have it backwards. You think that you should have the right to get a gun and it's up to the State to prove that you shouldn't. I think it's up to you to prove that you are responsible enough to get a gun and the state should regulate that.

I think you mean might, not will. As long as we still have a 1st Amendment, Americans will push back against needless, useless regulations. Good for them.

Thankyou for illustrating my point.

Licensing and registering leads to a list of all legal gun owners and the weapons they own. Some people want to avoid such a list.

Licensing and registering leads to a list of all legal car owners and the cars they own. Some people want to avoid such a list.

But so what? A car is a dangerous item. You should prove that you are fit to drive one before being granted that privilege. You should register them so that the owner can be identified easily if the thing is stolen or used in the commission of a crime.

Guns have a primary purpose of being instruments of death. Yet people are happy to accept that their car should be licensed and registered and that they should be tested on their ability before being permitted to operate one. But the instruments of death?

The average wait time for 911 is a half an hour in Detroit.

This is a ridiculous statistic. I'll tell you why:

911 call comes in. It's a shooting. Officers on scene in two minutes flat along with fire and ambulance, officers tied up interviewing witnesses, setting up a perimeter for K9, holding the scene. As a result second 911 call in the area comes in, it's a loud domestic argument that does not appear violent. That call waits for just over an hour.

Average wait time for those two calls? 30 minutes. So did it take 30 minutes to arrive at a shooting call?

That's the thing. You can have a guy going berserk or a break and enter in progress or a bank holdup or a sexual assault in progress that will get police on scene in moments but people call 911 because there's a mental person on the corner yelling and screaming, there's a traffic accident involving injuries, store security have arrested someone who was resisting and they called 911 but now he's in cuffs so the 911 call stays open.

0 gun shops, 0 places you can buy guns. Some of the toughest gun laws in the country. Oh and over 500 murders last year, many of them children.

http://www.yellowpages.com/detroit-mi/gun-shop

30 gun stores servicing the Detroit area. And let's not pretend that people can't afford to get to Dearborn to buy a gun. If they can drop $300 on a gun they can drop $5 on bus fair.

Detroit has a number of issues unrelated to gun legislation. In common with most areas of high violent crime you have overcrowding, over-reliance on insufficient government assistance, high unemployment, poverty and drugs. Pretending that the issues faced in Detroit are due to gun control is very dishonest.

Again the Supreme Court disagrees and the Federalist papers list the arguments used in creating all of the Amendments to the Constitution.

I note that you have dropped your attempt to explain the 2nd Amendment by use of commas.

Are you going to pretend that the shooter wouldn't have used the two pistols he was carrying?

A pistol is much more difficult to aim and has a lower muzzle velocity than the Bushmaster. If he used the pistols he was carrying instead of a high capacity rifle then maybe there would have been more wounded and less killed outright and the count would have been smaller.

Are you suggesting that a pair of pistols is just as efficient a weapon as a 30 round Bushmaster rifle? If you are then why sell the Bushmaster for self defense?

Oh and not this parent of a Sandy Hook child:

This is the press conference in which some of the parents were heckled by gun nuts. Not a great example.

Most of those as you know were suicides.

Yes. The suicide rate is considerably higher when access to efficient means is easy. Are you suggesting we discount suicides when calculating the cost in human lives of gun culture?

You're not trying to pretend that there were only 200 instances of legitimate self defense are you?

Finding reasonably accurate statistics about self defense is problematic. Surveys are self selected, meaning participants choose to participate in them. It's a politically charged subject which means that people are likely to lie or exaggerate their involvement (as is pointed out on the wikipedia page you erroneously decided supported your claims). Which means that reliable statistics come only from instances in which the police are involved. The best statistics available are those about deaths because deaths are properly investigated.

I'll post my action plan shortly.

So you pick and choose which statistically impossible things to use in pushing your agenda and which to completely ignore. Fine. But don't make absurd statements like "you will never need a firearm to protect yourself. Ever." And expect to be taken seriously.

This is a perfectly true statement. You will never need a firearm to protect yourself. Ever. Of course it is possible that I'm wrong. It is possible that you will be one of the .2% of crime victims who will use a firearm in self defense. But as you are unlikely to be the victim of a violent crime and even less likely to use your gun in self defense should that happen it's a very safe bet for me to say "You will never use a gun in self defense, ever".

[Daniel Alpha]

This is going to be a nice poster for the homes of those who advocate gun control.