• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

Boo Radley said:
Don't disagree that it would be murder. Not arguing it's an act of passion. But that we do tend to calm down when we have time to think.



Nice catch phrase, but in this case not really accurate.



What will you use one on? Duck? Quail? Deer? Bear?

And tank is more then armored btw. It has weapons. ;)
Click to expand...

Having a bit of experience with the criminal justice system I can tell you heat of passion does not normally survive a trip to the gun store. If you are mad enough to go out, buy a gun fill out the paperwork etc to cap someone you are now in the premeditated area of homicide and a cooling off period is not gonna stop that. A major CDC study of the brady bill's waiting period concluded that the only crimes that may have been lowered by a waiting period was SUICIDES among ONE age cohort

There is dozens of cases of people dying because they had to wait to get a gun. The most famous IIRC was a lady in the military-in VA I believe who got a restraining order against an ex and then tried to buy a gun when he violated the RO. He whacked her between the time she purchased the weapon and when she would have been allowed to take delivery.

You wanna wait 5 days if there is another Rodney King type riot?

ONe last point dealing with something you said earlier--if machine guns have no legitimate purpose in a civilian environment why does every major CIVILIAN law enforcement agency-from the IRS-CID to the Fish and Natural Resources (Smokey the Bear types) have them?
 
Boo Radley said:
Back up JR, I didn't say it was wrong, I asked you to explain the difference.

However, notice what is sourced:

What are the statistics about young people and firearm deaths and injuries?
The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [1] :

* In 1999, 3,385 children and youth ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
* This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
* The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:Four teen boys
o 214 unintentional
o 1,078 suicides
o 1,990 homicides
o 83 for which the intent could not be determined
o 20 due to legal intervention
* Of the total firearms-related deaths:
o 73 were of children under five years old
o 416 were children 5-14 years old
o 2,896 were 15-19 years old

For more information: Child Trends DataBank has available these teen homicide, suicide and firearm death statistics.

In addition to firearm deaths, we need to look at how many children and young people are hurt by guns. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in 1997, 2,514 children aged 0-14 were non-fatally injured by guns. In the same year, 30,225 young people aged 15-24 sustained nonfatal firearm injuries. These statistics include suicide attempts and both intentional and accidental shootings [2].

Gun Safety for Kids and Youth: Your Child: University of Michigan Health System

Again, using the same source but saying something different. Can you explain?
Click to expand...



18-19 year olds are serving in the infantry in Iraq. Many drug gangs recruit "children" because they don't get the same sort of time for being caught with a nickel bag of crack. 214 accidental deaths are all bad but that is an extremely low number given 200-300 million firearms in the USA and is lower than it was about 40 million guns ago.
 
googogo populism
 
Goobieman said:
Well heck -- we can delay the exercise any number of rights on those grounds!
I'm sorry -- you have to wait 90 days to have an abortion, just to make sure you aren't acting rashly.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the waiting period is 90 days. In fact, I think with better computers it is almost not at all presently. So, I'm not sure of your complaint.

Initially, the Brady Act imposed a waiting period of five days before a handgun could be transferred to an individual by a licensed dealer, importer, or manufacturer. This waiting period ceased to apply on November 30, 1998, when the computerized instant check system came online.

Currently, 92% of Brady background checks through NICS are completed while the FBI is still on the phone with the gun dealer [2]. In rare cases, a gun purchaser may have to wait for up to three business days if the NICS system fails to positively approve or deny his/her application to purchase a firearm. If a denial is not issued within those three days, the transfer may be completed at that time.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act]Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

All I've said is that I see no urgency to get a weapon, and I still don't. A few days denies no one anything.

If it is accurate at all, then it is accurate every time a right is delayed. You disagree with Dr. King?
Click to expand...

No, you're taking an apple and trying to apply it to a tree a frog. If King was told he had to wait 5 days for the paper work, he would have been find. Saying you have to wait until the time is right, which amounts to never, is very different. You're misreading the situations and the sentiment and how it applies.


False premise as The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.
Click to expand...

Nor was in not about anything. The second amendment was about a need to a citizen army, something we really don't have today. The reason the 2nd amendment was written is no longer valid today. But my point had nothing to do with that. By point was that a weapon is a tool, nothing more and nothing less, so what will you use this tool for?

Doesnt change the fact that there are many tanks in private hands.

And I note you side-stepped:

That's because nukes and tanks are not 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd. Automatic weapons -- indeed, any class of firearm - are.

That YOU see no need for them does not create a sound argument for infringing on my right to have and use one.
Click to expand...

I didn't side strep it; it simply has nothing to with my point. The courts have ruled rather consistently that there is no universal right to any weapon, any fire arm. States have made restrictions and they have held. You may not agree with the rulings, but there are limitations, and need and purpose does play a role.
 
Goobieman said:
~120/ year, over a population of over 300,000,000, isn't rare?

I'd bet more poeple die from accidentally swallowing toothpaste.
Click to expand...

Falling down claims more lives per year than accidental shootings.
 
TurtleDude said:
18-19 year olds are serving in the infantry in Iraq. Many drug gangs recruit "children" because they don't get the same sort of time for being caught with a nickel bag of crack. 214 accidental deaths are all bad but that is an extremely low number given 200-300 million firearms in the USA and is lower than it was about 40 million guns ago.
Click to expand...

Is that any reason not to address it? Assuming you're factually correct, and I don't dispute you, such is no less a concern than home invasion. Neither happens in large numbers. SO, between the two, I choose to worry more about children and less about home invasion. Can you make a case I shouldn't?
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't believe the waiting period is 90 days. In fact, I think with better computers it is almost not at all presently. So, I'm not sure of your complaint.
Click to expand...
Oh I see -- suddenly not in favor of waiting periods, eh?
Whatever argument you might want to make in support of waiting periods applies equally as well to rights that you'd never accept having to wait for.
All I've said is that I see no urgency to get a weapon, and I still don't. A few days denies no one anything.
Click to expand...
Like I said -- if 'a right delayed is a right denied' is valid, then it is valid for all rights. By your argument, a waiting period for abortion denies nothing to anyone, so long as they could eventually get one. Nor does a waiting period before you can invoke your 5th amendment rights.... Or your protection from searches w/o a warrant.... Or...
No, you're taking an apple and trying to apply it to a tree a frog.
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- MLK2 said "-A- right delayed..." he did not specify which rights he was referring to, and so the statement is plenary.
If King was told he had to wait 5 days for the paper work, he would have been find.
Click to expand...
This is unsupportable, especially if you were non-specific about the right in question.
Saying you have to wait until the time is right, which amounts to never, is very different. You're misreading the situations and the sentiment and how it applies.
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- your "oh, he wasnt talking about -that- right" response is iunsupportable.
Nor was in not about anything. The second amendment was about a need to a citizen army...
Click to expand...
Well then - there's no doubt that it protects the right to own and use an automatic weapon.
The reason the 2nd amendment was written is no longer valid today.
Click to expand...
This is nothing but unsupportable, subjective, selectively ignorant opinion.
The need to apply deadly force in the exercise of the right to self-defense, exercised individually or collectively, is every bit as valid today as it was back then.
But my point had nothing to do with that. By point was that a weapon is a tool, nothing more and nothing less, so what will you use this tool for?
Click to expand...
Whichever of the numerous legal uses for a firearm that I might choose.
There are, after all, a great many of said legal purposes.
I didn't side strep it; it simply has nothing to with my point.
Click to expand...
Interesting response, given that the statemenst were in respose to your statement:

As for automatic weapons, I don't see anyone with a nuke or a tank either, and I see no problem denying them to people.
Click to expand...

So, try not to side-step this again:

That's because nukes and tanks are not 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd. Automatic weapons -- indeed, any class of firearm - are.

That YOU see no need for them does not create a sound argument for infringing on my right to have and use one.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Falling down claims more lives per year than accidental shootings.
Click to expand...

Gravity is definitely not a right granted by the Constitution......... so it should be repealed. Save a lot of lives that way. :mrgreen:
 
Boo Radley said:
Is that any reason not to address it? Assuming you're factually correct, and I don't dispute you, such is no less a concern than home invasion. Neither happens in large numbers. SO, between the two, I choose to worry more about children and less about home invasion. Can you make a case I shouldn't?
Click to expand...
You can -worry- about it all you want.
What you cannot do is soundly argue that the issue rises to a level that justifies the infringement of the right to arms.
 
Goobieman said:
You can -worry- about it all you want.
What you cannot do is soundly argue that the issue rises to a level that justifies the infringement of the right to arms.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's true. One source I linked earlier says it happens once every three days. That's a fair number. I would be surprised if home invasions reach that level. A few years ago accidental deaths with children was said to happen four to five times a day. I wonder why it has decreased? I certainly don't suggest I can prove why, but one of the question to ask might be the effect of legislation passed on the decrease.

And again, you're not being denied any "right." Having trigger locks doesn't deny you the right to have the weapon. You're arguing something that simply isn't true. Your right is not lost.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not sure that's true. One source I linked earlier says it happens once every three days. That's a fair number.
Click to expand...
Show how ~120 accidental deaths/year creates a sound argument for infringing upon the rghts of ~100,000,000 people.

I would be surprised if home invasions reach that level.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the issue.

A few years ago accidental deaths with children was said to happen four to five times a day.
Click to expand...
With firearms? 1400-1800 per year?
This is either a statement made from ignorance or an outright lie

I wonder why it has decreased?
Click to expand...
It hasn't - it was never that high.

And again, you're not being denied any "right." Having trigger locks doesn't deny you the right to have the weapon.
Click to expand...
False premise, that the only way to infringe on a right is to flatly deny it.
 
Goobieman said:
Oh I see -- suddenly not in favor of waiting periods, eh?
Whatever argument you might want to make in support of waiting periods applies equally as well to rights that you'd never accept having to wait for.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I wasn't in favor of waiting periods. I said specifically I have no problem with them. And you have not shown me any reason to have a problem.

Like I said -- if 'a right delayed is a right denied' is valid, then it is valid for all rights. By your argument, a waiting period for abortion denies nothing to anyone, so long as they could eventually get one. Nor does a waiting period before you can invoke your 5th amendment rights.... Or your protection from searches w/o a warrant.... Or...

On the contrary -- MLK2 said "-A- right delayed..." he did not specify which rights he was referring to, and so the statement is plenary.

This is unsupportable, especially if you were non-specific about the right in question.
Click to expand...

Your right isn't delayed. From that day you still have the right. Before you go in you still have the right. All you're waiting for is the actual weapon. Again, you are really perverting the quote.



Well then - there's no doubt that it protects the right to own and use an automatic weapon.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's true. Again, the courts have repeatedly ruled restrictions can be applied.

This is nothing but unsupportable, subjective, selectively ignorant opinion.
The need to apply deadly force in the exercise of the right to self-defense, exercised individually or collectively, is every bit as valid today as it was back then.
Click to expand...

What are you going on about? This has nothing to do with the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. The reasoning back then was to have a citizen army on call, so they needed to be able to have and maintain weapons. It wasn't about self defense.

Whichever of the numerous legal uses for a firearm that I might choose.
There are, after all, a great many of said legal purposes.
Click to expand...

Name one. What will you use the tool on?



So, try not to side-step this again:

That's because nukes and tanks are not 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd. Automatic weapons -- indeed, any class of firearm - are.

That YOU see no need for them does not create a sound argument for infringing on my right to have and use one.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're looking for, but again, the courts have ruled that arms don't mean any arms you want. They can be restricted. Tanks are weapons. So are nukes. I'm not sure there's any point in defining arms as the founding fathers have no sense of what would be coming in the future. We cannot know what they would have thought about everyone having automatic weapons.

Again, just wanting one is not enough. And if states and the government can restrict, as the courts have allowed from the beginning, what they are used for and what is ruled appropriate matters.
 
Goobieman said:
Show how ~120 accidental deaths/year creates a sound argument for infringing upon the rghts of ~100,000,000 people.
Click to expand...

Again, no right is infringed upon. No one is banning weapons.

Irrelevant to the issue.
Click to expand...

It is to the conversation you came in on. A home invasion was given as reason not to have trigger locks.

With firearms? 1400-1800 per year?
This is either a statement made from ignorance or an outright lie
Click to expand...

We'd have to look back then. I'll do that for you later.





False premise, that the only way to infringe on a right is to flatly deny it.
Click to expand...

The "right" is the right to have weapons. No one has ban them. And from the beginning, there have been restrictions. Nothing new in this. So, no, you have it wrong. You do not have a completely unrestricted right.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, no right is infringed upon. No one is banning weapons.
Click to expand...
False premise, that the only way to infringe on a right is to flatly deny it.

It is to the conversation you came in on. A home invasion was given as reason not to have trigger locks.
Click to expand...
it is still irrelevant to the notion that the number of accidental deaths of children related to firearms is suffucient to warrant the infringement of the right.

We'd have to look back then. I'll do that for you later.
Click to expand...
Nice dodge.
Go here. See how wrong you were.
WONDER Message
1999-2006 there were a TOTAL of 1377 accidental deaths with firearms of 'children' aged 19 and younger, with the understanding that ages 18 and 19 are adutls.
Thats 2 in evey million kids. Kids are 35% more likely to be killed while walking dows the street than in a gun-related accident.

The "right" is the right to have weapons.
Click to expand...
The right is protected from infringement
Infringement covers more than just banning.
So, no, YOU have it wrong.
 
Boo Radley said:
Is that any reason not to address it? Assuming you're factually correct, and I don't dispute you, such is no less a concern than home invasion. Neither happens in large numbers. SO, between the two, I choose to worry more about children and less about home invasion. Can you make a case I shouldn't?
Click to expand...

well there isn't much you can do in terms of laws to remedy your concern.
 
Boo Radley said:
Maybe not. Trigger locks seem reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Education seems reasonable to me. If you have guns in your home, teach your children about guns and gun safety. Impress upon them the dangers associated with it. You'll go a lot further that route than you'll get with limited use of trigger locks. Again, the number of deaths due to accidental shooting is very very low in this country, so it's not a huge problem you're talking about. Fractions of a fraction of a percent.
 
Goobieman said:
False premise, that the only way to infringe on a right is to flatly deny it.
Click to expand...

A few day delay is not even a hindrance. Again, there is no infringement but only whining over nothing.

it is still irrelevant to the notion that the number of accidental deaths of children related to firearms is suffucient to warrant the infringement of the right.
Click to expand...

If it is, then it is both ways. However, I disagree. I think the numbers are sufficient enough to be a concern with children. Even your number of 120 a year is too many for something that can easily be prevented.


Nice dodge.
Go here. See how wrong you were.
WONDER Message
1999-2006 there were a TOTAL of 1377 accidental deaths with firearms of 'children' aged 19 and younger, with the understanding that ages 18 and 19 are adutls.
Thats 2 in evey million kids. Kids are 35% more likely to be killed while walking dows the street than in a gun-related accident.
Click to expand...

I can't get anything immediately off your link, but I have this:

A firearm was reported to have been involved in the deaths of 1107 children; 957 (86%) of those occurred in the United States. Of all firearm-related deaths, 55% were reported as homicides; 20%, as suicides; 22%, as unintentional; and 3%, as intention undetermined. The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined (1.66 compared with 0.14) (Table_1). The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher (0.32 compared with 0.03); and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04). For all countries, males accounted for most of the firearm-related homicides (67%), firearm-related suicides (77%), and unintentional firearm-related deaths (89%). The nonfirearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly four times the rate in all of the other countries (1.63 compared with 0.45), and nonfirearm-related suicide rates were similar in the United States and in all of the other countries combined (0.23 compared with 0.24).

The rate for firearm-related deaths among children in the United States (1.66) was 2.7-fold greater than that in the country with the next highest rate (Finland, 0.62) (Figure_1). Except for rates for firearm-related suicide in Northern Ireland and firearm-related fatalities of unknown intent in Austria, Belgium, and Israel, rates for all types of firearm-related deaths were higher in the United States than in the other countries. However, among all other countries, the impact of firearm-related deaths varied substantially. For example, five countries, including three of the four countries in Asia, reported no firearm-related deaths among children. In comparison, firearms were the primary cause of homicide in Finland, Israel, Australia, Italy, Germany, and England and Wales. Five countries (Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, and Taiwan) reported only unintentional firearm-related deaths.

Reported by: Div of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries

A Health and Human Services report released on Monday, July 24, 2000, indicates the number of children and teens killed with guns in 1998 declined by 10 percent from 1997 and by 35 percent from 1994. The report shows 3,792 children and adolescents under age 20 died in 1998 from firearms compared to 4,223 in 1997 and 5,833 in 1994.

The decrease as reported in, "Deaths: Final Data for 1998," prepared by the CDC also represents a decrease from 16 in 1994 to 10 in 1998, the number of children killed per day by gunfire.

Child Gun Deaths Continue to Decline




The right is protected from infringement
Infringement covers more than just banning.
So, no, YOU have it wrong.
Click to expand...

Regulation is not infringement. Again, the courts have ruled that guns can be regulated.
 
Ikari said:
Education seems reasonable to me. If you have guns in your home, teach your children about guns and gun safety. Impress upon them the dangers associated with it. You'll go a lot further that route than you'll get with limited use of trigger locks. Again, the number of deaths due to accidental shooting is very very low in this country, so it's not a huge problem you're talking about. Fractions of a fraction of a percent.
Click to expand...

Have no problem with that either. Never would suggest it was either / or. As for a huge problem, not sure I agree with you. Low is a relative proposition. My link suggests it's higher here than elsewhere.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
rapists, burglulars, home invaders agree. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I have asked for number for you on home invasions. You have not povided them. I suspect they are much lower than the numbers for kids.

As for rapists and burgulars, not sure a weapon is that much help. I taught my brother in law once that if I wanted him shot, he would be shot. Warned him I would shoot him during the week, and shot him with a paint ball. He's heavily armed and couldn't stop me. Better armed only means better planning.
 
Boo Radley said:
I have asked for number for you on home invasions. You have not povided them. I suspect they are much lower than the numbers for kids.
Click to expand...



You are free to prove your contention. I think you would fail miserably....










As for rapists and burgulars, not sure a weapon is that much help. I taught my brother in law once that if I wanted him shot, he would be shot. Warned him I would shoot him during the week, and shot him with a paint ball. He's heavily armed and couldn't stop me. Better armed only means better planning.
Click to expand...



1st. don't believe you. that story is a little to taylored to your point. Regardless...


* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.3
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You are free to prove your contention. I think you would fail miserably....
Click to expand...

Actually, the burden of proof is on you concerning this one. You're the one claiming it a problem.




1st. don't believe you. that story is a little to taylored to your point. Regardless...


* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.3
Click to expand...

Don't care what you believe. He's a responsible gun owner, but makes silly claims that people don't mess with him because he has guns. He's nearly 7 foot tall and 300 pound. There's a another reason people don't mess with him. But I proved my point

BTW, I don't see a link for what you add here. Let me link something for you:

Self-protection

Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually.[60] This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame.[60] For violent crimes (assault, robbery, and rape), guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense.[60] Of the times that guns were used in self-defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well-known to the victim.[60] Of all incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims shot at the offender 28% of the time.[60] In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers.[60] During this same time period, 1987 and 1990, there were 46,319 gun homicides,[61] and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred.[60]

The findings of the McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrast with the findings of a 1993 study by Gary Kleck, who finds that as many as 2.45 million crimes are thwarted each year in the United States, and in most cases, the potential victim never fires a shot in these cases where firearms are used constructively for self-protection.[62] The results of the Kleck studies have been cited many times in scholarly and popular media.[63][64][65][66][67][68][69]

McDowall cites methodological issues with the Kleck studies, claiming that Kleck used a very small sample size and did not confine self-defense to attempted victimizations where physical attacks had already commenced.[60] The former criticism, however, is inaccurate — Kleck's survey with Marc Gertz in fact used the largest sample size of any survey that ever asked respondents about defensive gun use — 4,977 cases, far more than is typical in national surveys.[70] A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, found that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns.[71]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States]Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

It's just an overview, but it has links and we could get the FBI stats if we want. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
As for a huge problem, not sure I agree with you. Low is a relative proposition. My link suggests it's higher here than elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Cross country evaluations are often difficult due to the differences in society, population, and laws. For us, it's a relatively low number since there are so many people and guns in our society and so few accidental deaths. Since it's below that of gravity, I don't see it as a huge problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom