Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

to lives lost to gun violence, really goes beyond mere "boorishness"--

@oralloy,
Soon Firefly will be back to posting cartoons.........

You are so into body counts you can't even think straight. Gun violence is the most frequent source of multiple killings and woundings in the U.S..

We have people being killed by gun violence on a daily basis in this country.

Firearms are weapons of destruction, designed specifically to kill.

The purpose of a weapon like this one is to kill--as many people as possible, as rapidly as possible.

Arguing that this weapon should be easily available defies common sense.

I don't care how many other ways of destroying human lives you can conjure up, the fact is that significantly more homicides in this country are committed by guns than by the use of any other weapons.

And where there are more guns, there are more homicides.

Harvard Injury Control Research Center

Homicide

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.


2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.


3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.


4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

In a thread about a massacre, that left 12 dead and 58 wounded, the loving discussion and promotion of various firearms, and the cavalier disregard and indifference to lives lost to gun violence, really goes beyond mere "boorishness"

But, if insanity is determined by loss of contact with reality, the shoe might fit these two. They engage in so much denial, and so much rationalization, that reality barely seeps through.

Support of the Second Ammendment does not mean one should abandon all reason, or logic, or ability to evaluate the societal problem of gun violence.

Seems kind of disrespectful to the dead in my opinion to be trying to used their deaths in such a manner.

Thank Firefly for the cartoon now just for the fun of it how are assault weapons design to kill people innocent or not innocent more then any other semi-auto hunting or target rifle?

oralloy wrote:

What cluelessness? Can you point out a single fact that I am wrong about?

Talk about being clueless.

BillRM wrote:

Seems kind of disrespectful to the dead in my opinion to be trying to used their deaths in such a manner.

It's considerably more disrespectful to use their deaths as an excuse to discuss your passion for guns, your knowledge of guns, your "gun rights", and your helpful hints for other methods of mass destruction, as you have done in this thread.

BillRM wrote:

Thank Firefly for the cartoon now just for the fun of it how are assault weapons design to kill people innocent or not innocent more then any other semi-auto hunting or target rifle?

You may be able to discuss various methods of killing people "just for the fun of it", but I find nothing at all "fun" about it. That you find this a form of "fun" is one reason I think you're nuts, and one reason I won't indulge your craziness.

You may be able to discuss various methods of killing people "just for the fun of it", but I find nothing at all "fun" about it. That you find this a form of "fun" is one reason I think you're nuts, and one reason I won't indulge your craziness.

BillRM wrote:

Soon Firefly will be back to posting cartoons.........

Deadly serious cartoons...

Maybe the so call assault ban is not a bad idea as it seems that the gun control nuts such as Firefly go on how they feel about a firearm by looks alone not function.

A mean looking BB gun will get them yelling for a ban but a 50 cal sniper rifle that can reach out and kill at over a mile, if only the manufactures would engraved little cute butterflies and paint them pink , would get the Fireflies of the world smiling.

We need more deadly but also more harmless looking weapons that way everyone can be happy.

It violates rational basis scrutiny (to say nothing of sterner standards of scrutiny).

Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns
7/29/12

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

"Some undoubtedly are [permissible] because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head axe or something. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."

“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."

The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns. The court also ruled, though, that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/antonin-scalia-guns_n_1715969.html

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice in the last four years that the Second Amendment to the Constitution contains a personal right to bear arms, both by a 5-4 majority along the high court's ideological fault line.

In 2008's District of Columbia vs. Heller, the court's five conservatives struck down the capital's gun control law. The law banned handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns. It separately mandated that no one could carry an unlicensed handgun, authorized the police chief to issue one-year licenses, and required residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "We hold that the district's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Two years later, the same narrow majority struck down Chicago's handgun ban. The case asked whether the 14th Amendment, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, protects the Second Amendment right to bear arms in the states.

"Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the narrow majority opinion in McDonald vs. Chicago. "Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in [2008's] Heller, we held that individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right. ... Explaining that 'the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute' in the home ... we found that this right applies to handguns because they are 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to "keep"' and use for protection of one's home and family.'

"Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted 'to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.'"

Both Scalia and Alito, in their opinions, cited historical evidence of the right to bear arms. Ironically, neither mentioned that most iconic of gun control cases, the "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral," when in 1881 the lawmen Earps and Doc Holliday tried to enforce Tombstone, Ariz.'s ban on carrying weapons.

But Scalia left open a big window for government gun control.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," he wrote in the syllabus of his opinion. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the [Second] Amendment or state analogs. The [Supreme] Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/07/29/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Gun-control-in-the-post-Aurora-world/UPI-13211343547000/#ixzz23lm55zoI

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice in the last four years that the Second Amendment to the Constitution contains a personal right to bear arms, both by a 5-4 majority along the high court's ideological fault line.

In 2008's District of Columbia vs. Heller, the court's five conservatives struck down the capital's gun control law. The law banned handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns. It separately mandated that no one could carry an unlicensed handgun, authorized the police chief to issue one-year licenses, and required residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "We hold that the district's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Two years later, the same narrow majority struck down Chicago's handgun ban. The case asked whether the 14th Amendment, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, protects the Second Amendment right to bear arms in the states.

"Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the narrow majority opinion in McDonald vs. Chicago. "Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in [2008's] Heller, we held that individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right. ... Explaining that 'the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute' in the home ... we found that this right applies to handguns because they are 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to "keep"' and use for protection of one's home and family.'

"Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted 'to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.'"

Both Scalia and Alito, in their opinions, cited historical evidence of the right to bear arms. Ironically, neither mentioned that most iconic of gun control cases, the "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral," when in 1881 the lawmen Earps and Doc Holliday tried to enforce Tombstone, Ariz.'s ban on carrying weapons.

But Scalia left open a big window for government gun control.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," he wrote in the syllabus of his opinion. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the [Second] Amendment or state analogs. The [Supreme] Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/07/29/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Gun-control-in-the-post-Aurora-world/UPI-13211343547000/#ixzz23lm55zoI

""It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever
in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

Quote:

Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns
7/29/12

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

That is a contradiction. And who says they disagreed with me on gun laws?

Is sneaky bad?