Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

I will curtail my posting somewhat this PM,
in that my next OOBE lesson is on for tonite. I 'm having some friends over for the class.





David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I will curtail my posting somewhat this PM,
in that my next OOBE lesson is on for tonite. I 'm having some friends over for the class.





David

See ya tomorrow, David.
If you get out...don't forget to get back in. We need you here.

30,000 is the # of total deaths from guns, not just accidents. 100,000 + is the total of self defense gun uses per year.

More than 100,000 people per year
are killed or injured by guns every year.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Everyone who has the right to LIVE
has as much right as anyone else, including police and the mayor,
to defend his life. Government was never granted authority to interfere in that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you are saying that criminals in prison for murder, rape,
violent assault, robbery and such...should have a right to own guns.
And individuals committed to (what used to be called) insane asylums...
should have a right to own gun.

Yes, as far as I know,
thay DO have that right,
the same as the right to own real estate.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And you would argue that the government
should not refuse them permission to exercise that right.

I woud, tho I need not;
so far as I know, government has never presented them
with that challenge (neither qua guns nor real estate).

Frank Apisa wrote:

Just want to be sure I understand you, Counsellor…
not to be confused with (allow you to dig this hole as deep as you want}:

You are telling me that you would argue for the right of prisoners
to own and possess guns…

U CHANGED the question.
Now u include possession.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I see. In your mind...owning a gun to protect yourself
is somehow different from actually possessing it.

Its an ez concept.
I 'm sure that u r better than equal to the task of mastering it:
suppose that u acquire your first gun.
U lend it to me.
If a predator (human or not) kills u because u were un-armed,
u owned that gun while I borrowed it, but u did not POSSESS it,
and accordingly u got killed. Do u see the distinction ???

No.

But I will acknowledge that you are stretching things to such an extent
that the tears in my eyes from laughing are causing some sight distortion.

Qua prisoners, my position is that thay shud be offered
the opportunity to be left alone, out of contact with any other prisoners,
unless thay choose to have social contact with them.
If thay r safe, alone, under constant guard, then I 'll be satisfied qua 2A.
We can indulge the fiction that not only do we give them guns to KABA,
but we give them the troops to man those guns: the guards.

But the point is that you either think that prisoners should be able to own
and possess guns...or you think that they should not.

Why you make the distinction
is not so important as the fact that you do.

So...from what I am reading...you are going through all this rigmarole
so that you do not have to say, "I think prisoners should not under
ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be allowed to own and possess guns."

But you already have conceded that death row inmates
should not be allowed to own and possess guns

because they are going to die...and "they have forfeited their right" to do so.

So we already have a line drawn...and rather than go this contortion, David,
why not say the obvious, that prisoners in prison ought not to be allowed to own and possess weapons.

It is not that hard...and from down there in the hole you have dug,
it is not going to make that much difference.

Lemme put it this way, in the fullness of good faith, with all humor laid aside:
I am sure that when the Authors of the 2A wrote it,
thay meant all of the people of the USA,
certainly including children for their protection from violence,
excepting: Indians (who were not deemed part of the USA)
incarcerated criminals, mentally sick men who were confined
to hospitals, and African slaves.

And would you still exempt those people
from being allowed to own and possess guns?

IF the wardens insist that thay mix with dangerous criminals,
then their 2nd Amendment rights to KABA have been activated.

Um humm...and as far as you are concerned, all those guys in what
used to be Rahway State Penitentiary here in New Jersey, who are
pretty much required to be housed in the general population...
should be allowed to own and possess guns...

...and all those unannounced prison shake-downs to seize illegal
weapons of all sorts are objectionable to you?

Hummm.

Still diggin"!

WHO is protected by 2A? In US v. Verdugo 110 S. Ct. 1056
the USSC tells us that the same people are protected
by the First Amendment, the SECOND AMENDMENT, the Fourth Amendment (searches & seizures)
the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.
Were the Authors of the 2nd Amendment (James Madison)
thinking of the people in prison??
No. (We know that because at the time, prisoners were not armed.
There was no discussion of that in the press, nor in surviving correspondence.)
The significant consideration, to which u did not directly refer is:
safety of the guards and their ability to control the prison
that is occupied by a well armed malicious militia.

I repeat: As far as YOU are concerned, all those guys in what used
to be Rahway State Penitentiary here in New Jersey, who are pretty
much required to be housed in the general population...should be
allowed to own and possess guns...

...and all those unannounced prison shake-downs to seize illegal
weapons of all sorts are objectionable to you?

Dig as hard as you want, David...but you will never reach bottom.

We 'll C.

Credit where credit is due: You are trying!

P.S....you still do not have the quoting thingy down!

You can start here which gives links to the CDC
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/do-people-get-shot-every-year-facebook-post-says/

"Nearly 100,000 people get shot every year.
That's 270 people a day and 87 dead."
Facebook posts on Saturday, July 21st, 2012 in on the Internet
In the wake of the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., Americans
took to social media to express their views on guns and violence.

A reader sent us one Facebook post about the extent of gun violence in the United States. It said, "USA is #1 in gun violence. Nearly 100,000 people get shot every year. That's 270 people a day and 87 dead because of gun violence every day."

In this item, we’ll look at the second half of that claim: "Nearly 100,000 people get shot every year. That's 270 people a day and 87 dead."

The numbers

We turned to statistics from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; experts [????] in the field told us it keeps the most reliable statistics on the subject. The CDC collects two sets of relevant data.

The first is data for deaths by guns, which is included in an annual report about deaths of all types during calendar year 2009. The numbers for gun deaths is broken down into several categories:

Suicide: 18,735 deaths
Homicide: 11,493 deaths
Unintentional: 554 deaths
Legal interventions: 333 deaths
Undetermined: 232 deaths

Total: 31,347 deaths

The second data set tracks non-fatal injuries by guns. According to the CDC, there were 73,505 non-fatal firearm injuries in 2010.
(We will ignore an additional 13,851 non-fatal injuries from BB or pellet guns.)

How accurate is the Facebook post?

If you add together the gun deaths and the non-fatal gun injuries, you get 104,852 people shot every year. That’s very close to what the Facebook post said. The Facebook post was also close in its daily averages -- 287 people shot every day, and 86 deaths by gun every day.

There’s one area, however, in which the Facebook post could have benefited from additional context. It says that "nearly 100,000 people get shot every year," which to us suggests that a victim is being shot by someone else. In reality, a significant majority of gun deaths comes from self-inflicted firearm wounds.

If you ignore the suicides -- and if you assume that relatively few people survive a suicide attempt with a firearm (we couldn’t find any hard data on that question) -- then the number of people who got shot, either fatally or non-fatally, was about 86,000, or roughly 235 a day. That’s lower than the Facebook post indicated. And the daily number of firearm deaths would be substantially lower -- 35 per day, rather than the 87 cited in the Facebook post.

Our ruling

The numbers in the Facebook post are close to accurate, as long as you make one major assumption -- that suicides count as "get(ting) shot." We think that assumption is debatable, but there is no question that at least 100,000 people did die or become injured from firearms. On balance, we rate this claim Mostly True.

Quote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Everyone who has the right to LIVE
has as much right as anyone else, including police and the mayor,
to defend his life. Government was never granted authority to interfere in that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you are saying that criminals in prison for murder, rape,
violent assault, robbery and such...should have a right to own guns.
And individuals committed to (what used to be called) insane asylums...
should have a right to own gun.

Yes, as far as I know,
thay DO have that right,
the same as the right to own real estate.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And you would argue that the government
should not refuse them permission to exercise that right.

I woud, tho I need not;
so far as I know, government has never presented them
with that challenge (neither qua guns nor real estate).

Frank Apisa wrote:

Just want to be sure I understand you, Counsellor…
not to be confused with (allow you to dig this hole as deep as you want}:

You are telling me that you would argue for the right of prisoners
to own and possess guns…

U CHANGED the question.
Now u include possession.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I see. In your mind...owning a gun to protect yourself
is somehow different from actually possessing it.

Its an ez concept.
I 'm sure that u r better than equal to the task of mastering it:
suppose that u acquire your first gun.
U lend it to me.
If a predator (human or not) kills u because u were un-armed,
u owned that gun while I borrowed it, but u did not POSSESS it,
and accordingly u got killed. Do u see the distinction ???

Frank Apisa wrote:

No.

But I will acknowledge that you are stretching things to such an extent
that the tears in my eyes from laughing are causing some sight distortion.

U don t know the difference
between possessing something and OWNing it????
Suppose that u let me BORROW your car.
I possess it, but I dont own it. Yes????

DAVID wrote:

Qua prisoners, my position is that thay shud be offered
the opportunity to be left alone, out of contact with any other prisoners,
unless thay choose to have social contact with them.
If thay r safe, alone, under constant guard, then I 'll be satisfied qua 2A.
We can indulge the fiction that not only do we give them guns to KABA,
but we give them the troops to man those guns: the guards.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But the point is that you either think that prisoners should be able to own
and possess guns...or you think that they should not.

Frank, what harm is there in criminals OWNing guns??
Y do u care in whom title reposes??

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why you make the distinction
is not so important as the fact that you do.

I dont see it that way.
If he owns a herd of horses, wud u fear that the guards 'd be trampled???

Frank Apisa wrote:

So...from what I am reading...you are going through all this rigmarole
so that you do not have to say, "I think prisoners should not under
ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be allowed to own and possess guns."

No, no, no. That is not my position.
Incidentally, dont forget my BANISHMENT position qua violent recidivists.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But you already have conceded that death row inmates
should not be allowed to own and possess guns

That 's not what I said; if I were not so nice a guy and in such a good mood,
I 'd do what U did to ME and challenge u to FIND where I said that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

because they are going to die...and "they have forfeited their right" to do so.

So we already have a line drawn...and rather than go this contortion, David,
why not say the obvious, that prisoners in prison ought not to be allowed to own and possess weapons.

It is not that hard...and from down there in the hole you have dug,
it is not going to make that much difference.

DAVID wrote:

Lemme put it this way, in the fullness of good faith, with all humor laid aside:
I am sure that when the Authors of the 2A wrote it,
thay meant all of the people of the USA,
certainly including children for their protection from violence,
excepting: Indians (who were not deemed part of the USA)
incarcerated criminals, mentally sick men who were confined
to hospitals, and African slaves.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And would you still exempt those people
from being allowed to own and possess guns?

The Indians and the slaves have been re-defined
as being among "the people"; the others have not.

DAVID wrote:

IF the wardens insist that thay mix with dangerous criminals,
then their 2nd Amendment rights to KABA have been activated.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Um humm...and as far as you are concerned, all those guys in what
used to be Rahway State Penitentiary here in New Jersey, who are
pretty much required to be housed in the general population...
should be allowed to own and possess guns...

...and all those unannounced prison shake-downs to seize illegal
weapons of all sorts are objectionable to you?

Hummm.

Still diggin"!

DAVID wrote:

WHO is protected by 2A? In US v. Verdugo 110 S. Ct. 1056
the USSC tells us that the same people are protected
by the First Amendment, the SECOND AMENDMENT, the Fourth Amendment (searches & seizures)
the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.
Were the Authors of the 2nd Amendment (James Madison)
thinking of the people in prison??
No. (We know that because at the time, prisoners were not armed.
There was no discussion of that in the press, nor in surviving correspondence.)
The significant consideration, to which u did not directly refer is:
safety of the guards and their ability to control the prison
that is occupied by a well armed malicious militia.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I repeat: As far as YOU are concerned, all those guys in what used
to be Rahway State Penitentiary here in New Jersey, who are pretty
much required to be housed in the general population...should be
allowed to own and possess guns...

...and all those unannounced prison shake-downs to seize illegal
weapons of all sorts are objectionable to you?

Its better to BANISH them,
and then let them attend to their own defensive concerns.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Dig as hard as you want, David...but you will never reach bottom.

DAVID wrote:

We 'll C.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Credit where credit is due: You are trying!

P.S....you still do not have the quoting thingy down!

I think its better.

David

2. Who decides the definition of an expert??
Must he be an anti-freedom fanatic??

5. There is NO identification of any sources of the CDC's purported data,
nor any ability in the audience to check for duplications.
Are thay from the gun repressionists??

Quote:

2. Who decides the definition of an expert??
Must he be an anti-freedom fanatic??

CDC uses data collected from hospitals. Are you saying data is anti-freedom
or are you saying hospitals that report on gun shot wounds are anti-freedom?
You certainly can't be saying that accurate data is anti-freedom.

Then again, you probably are saying accurate data is anti-freedom.

. . . We ["We" means Facebook????] turned to statistics from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; experts[????] in the field told us it keeps the most reliable statistics on the subject. . . .

5. There is NO identification of any sources of the CDC's purported data,
nor any ability in the audience to check for duplications.
Are thay from the gun repressionists??

No identification of the sources? Only if you aren't willing to actually look for the methodology can you say that.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/facts.html. But don't let your own stupidity get in the way of your willful blindness David.

In the context of what we were discussing, David...
namely, prisoners having guns...there is no appreciable difference.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In the context of what we were discussing, David...
namely, prisoners having guns...there is no appreciable difference.

Your logic is defective. The difference is very appreciable,
as a matter of life n death, if the guns that he owns
are 1,OOOs of miles beyond his possession. I 'm sure u know that.





David

Facebook?? wrote:

. . . We ["We" means Facebook????] turned to statistics from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; experts[????] in the field told us it keeps the most reliable statistics on the subject. . . .

David

I 'm surprized that u 'd just swallow this un-critically
and then offer it up to us as the truth.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Facebook?? wrote:

. . . We ["We" means Facebook????] turned to statistics from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; experts[????] in the field told us it keeps the most reliable statistics on the subject. . . .

David

Facebook? Where did you get Facebook from other than they are factchecking the story that was being reposted on Facebook? You need to read the story again David. You seem to have missed almost all context.
Politifact is run by the Tampa Bay Times. They are the ones that did the fact checking.

Frannkly David, you deserve to be treated rudely after your comments and lack of comprehension.

You said this

Quote:

I 'm surprized that u 'd just swallow this un-critically
and then offer it up to us as the truth.

I did not swallow it "un-critically". I followed the links to the CDC data and confirmed it before posting the link. I even mentioned that the links were there to the CDC. I was merely responding to your request for a source and then you attack me personally for my source. Get over yourself David. You are nothing but a blind fool on this subject. Rather than checking out the original source you simply pretend it isn't there. I see no reason to treat you like an adult if you won't act like one.