Yes, of course, you need a person (usually) to pull the trigger. But it is abundance of and ease of access to guns that causes the United States to be off the charts in woundings and killings from firearms. This is what the research has shown for a very long time and continues to show. Here, I’ll give you yet another example. All of the following text, and the tables, are exerted directly from the paper.
Paper: Mental Illness and Gun Violence: Lessons for the United States from Australia and Britain. Evans Richard, Farmer Clare, and Saligari Jessica. Violence and Gender. September 2016, 3(3): 150-156.
Abstract: In the United States, the nexus between mental illness and shootings has been the subject of heated argument. An extreme expression of one point of view is that “guns don’t kill people, the mentally ill do.” This article seeks to demonstrate the falsehood of this argument, by examining the real-world experience of two comparable societies. Australia and Great Britain are both Anglophone nations with numerous points of commonality with the United States, including high rates of mental illness and significant exposure to popular culture that perpetuates the stigma of the mentally ill as a violent threat. However, in Australia, it is difficult to obtain firearms, and a mentally ill person behaving aggressively is unlikely to be able to harm others. On the contrary, police are almost the only people routinely armed in Australian communities and are often too ready to use firearms against the mentally ill. In Britain, guns are even more difficult to obtain, and operational police are not usually armed. The authors examine statistical data on mental illness, homicide, and civilian deaths caused by police in all three nations. They also consider media and popular opinion environments. They conclude that mental illness is prevalent in all three societies, as is the damaging stigma of “the dangerous madman.” However, the fewer people (including police officers) who have access to firearms, the safer that community is.
The mental illness part:
The part about the police:
The part about the guns:
The part about the mass shootings:
Homicides and firearms related deaths in the UK, Australia, and US:
The homicide by firearm rate in each of the three countries that differ mainly in access to and abundance of guns:
The conclusions:
Australia, Britain, and the United States are directly comparable societies. Statistical data confirm that they have similar rates of mental illness, including those forms of mental illness most likely to be associated with violent behavior. …
The significant differences among the three societies are the number of firearms in the community and whether the police are armed….
The benefits of strict gun control and unarmed police are most starkly illustrated by the differences in deaths due to police action. The population of the United States is almost five times greater than that of Britain. This means that, according to data known to be a vast underestimate (Planty et al. 2015), a US civilian is between 171 and 226 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a person living in Britain in the worst recorded year of the past decade (Teers 2015).
The contention that “guns don’t kill people, the mentally ill do” is unsustainable. Guns kill people. The fewer guns there are in a community, whether in the hands of civilians or of police, the safer that community is.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Irrelevant. The U.S. has the 2nd Amendment. Individual’s rights to own and use guns for personal protection has never been stronger. We simply can not take guns away from lawful people.
The U.S. also has WAY more guns than, say, Australia. And yet, the percentage of those guns, as well as the percentage of legitimate gun owners, which have been involved through the use of those guns, in something untoward and violent against someone else, is so small as to be a rounding error.
Therefore, guns do NOT kill people. Some people kill other people with guns in the U.S. And the data shows that the vast majority of these people who use guns to kill others are drug/gang related.
An assertion shown to be incorrect by the actual research quoted in the OP.
This is the sort of thing one expects from climate change deniers, not rational actors.
You also at one time had the 18th Amendment. You succeeded in repealing it.
1) support for modifying gun laws and rights has never been stronger.
2) The second amendment doesn’t really require that there be virtually no regulation of guns
3) We can and will if necessary repeal the 2nd. People are getting fed up.
4) Facts do not become irrelevant if they are obviated by lousy politics and intense lobbying. Ever.
The US has 23,000 gun laws on the books and this still happens.
We have two guns in the scenario, one opens fire and the other ends the conflict.
How are we granting moral agency to inanimate objects? America is founded on self-government. If people will not behave morally, they have the legal and practical ability to end these threats (Thank God). Anti-gunners would rather remove the practical ability from the equation, being ruled by corrupt government (aren’t people protesting police brutality, and we desire to disarm them?)
Furthermore, “Mental Illness” is the new buzzword replacing “Feeblemindeness” as was once the cry of the Eugenicist. Stop me when you’ve heard this one before…killing babies on demand (but THEY’RE not really people), disarmed populace, and “scientists” claiming that there’s an overabundance of people, particularly people will diagnosed mental deficiencies…
“We have two guns in the scenario, one opens fire and the other ends the conflict.”
No, you ignoramus: the shooting was done when the second person confronted the killer. The killer was entering his car to leave. Why do you lie like that?
My god you are really ignorant. Are you seriously saying there is no such thing as mental illness?
Stop — your dishonesty and lack of willfulness to stay on topic or to say anything remotely based in fact are embarrassing to humanity.
Dean,
Did you want to refute or make a counter argument, or just do the playground name-calling thing, you schmuck?
Why are people arguing to disarm the populace because of the “mental illness” of a few? Are the next 1,000 gun laws going to revolve around a mental fitness requirement, a license that requires periodic testing, such as a driving license? And what other Rights are people going to forfeit by failing this test?
Again, there are ladder accidents, water accidents and automobile accidents that kill or maim people annually. Yet, because of the power of the firearm in confronting corrupt governments and the Liberty that follows, only the firearm is targeted for regulatory ire. The AWB in the 90s having brought political destruction to one party, a new scapegoat must be brought forth for the slaughter. Enter “mental illenss”.
And AGAIN that rightwing meme! Boy does it have legs.
But it’s not true.
Vetting that works and a ban on assault weapons are a million miles away from ‘disarm[ing] the populace’.
But keep on lying – it makes you look so good.
You are called a liar because of statements like that. Nobody is trying to disarm the populace. For the comments on Lott :
*****************************
Lott, on his website, claimed that his research had been published in the peer-reviewed Journal “Econ Journal Watch”. This was a big deal because he had been before (and has been since) famous for never submitting his work for peer review, preferring to put it on his own site and write it in his own articles. The only problem with his declaration of publication was that it was a complete lie: it was not accepted for publication in the journal and never appeared there.
He has repeatedly made comments like this one he made to the Tennessee Senate: ?
??
There are several reasons that isn’t true.
— He was using different definitions for mass shootings and the calculations of rates than the ones law enforcement and criminologists use. He explicitly excluded mass shootings due to burglaries and gang violence, a choice he is alone in doing, but did include shootings from terrorist attacks, which is also something nobody else who studies it does.
— Lott didn’t mention that his paper, the one he referenced as support for his comments, contradicted his statement. Even with his unusual definitions for mass shootings, his data tables show that for the time period he discussed the rate of shootings per million people was 0.078 for the US, 0.038 for the EU, and 0.032 for all of Europe: statistically significant differences all.?
Lott isn’t alone. Some of his board members (Carlisle Moody and three others) wrote a paper looking at the effects of right-to-carry laws. They included in it a critique of a study by John Donahue (and others). ??The Donahue paper concluded that the most significant effect of concealed carry laws was an increase in aggravated assault. Moody and his fellow authors disagreed, writing??
??
Big surprise here — their own work contradicts that. In their paper the results in one table (Table 3, page 7) gives t-test results that show the increase in aggravated assault is statistically significant. The problem is that, unlike other tests that showed significance and so were bolded for emphasis, the two tests for “post-law trend” and “Assault”, both of which met their own criterion for high significance (t of 2.8 and 2.25 respectively) were not bolded, indicating to a casual reading that the results were not significant. ??
More of the same: in 2003 Lott sent a series of graphs to the National Academy of Sciences — he claimed what they showed supported his standard “more guns less crime” argument. They were bogus: it was found that the complete analysis represented was the result of bad coding. Lott did withdraw them. Probably not intentional fraud, just crappy and sloppy work.
??He’s misrepresented things in other ways. After the Orlando nightclub shootings he said ?
?He says his report “The Myth of Mass Public Shootings: An Analysis” supports that.??That isn’t what his report says. Publicly, he says “gun-free zones” are the same as regions that prohibit concealed carry. The report uses a different definition: in it he refers to gun-free zones as anywhere it is “difficult” (his opinion) to obtain a permit or (very important) the number of permit holders is small despite it being perfectly legal to carry. In the report he states that ?
??
Playing fast and loose with facts is a hallmark of his work. After a student at Umpqua College killed nine other students he (through his website) said (random capitalizations due to him)?
??
He reference the student handbook and the fact that campus guards were not allowed to carry weapons.?? Partly true. Guards did not have weapons. The assertion that concealed carry was not allowed on campus was completely false. Public colleges in Oregon are prohibited by law from banning guns on campus (true since 2011). The student handbook, the one he referenced to support his argument, specifically states there is an exception to the prohibition of firearms for people as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, including carry permits. ??More directly, news reports had several interviews with students who were carrying firearms and who had been on campus at the time of the shooting.
There are many more issues with his work (including one instance where he insisted that his results were obtained from responses to a nation-wide survey he’d done, but when pressed he “could not find” the survey or the data), but one of the best indicators of his behavior is this one.
??In the early 2000s, after some of his work had been examined and found wanting, a woman (named Mary Rosh) came to his defense. She claimed to be a former student of Lott’s, and praised him as the best professor she’d ever had, cast aspersions on the people commenting on his work, and more. But (again) — this was bogus. People investigated her emails and messages and found that the IP address “she” used was identical to Lott’s personal email. He finally admitted that she didn’t exist, and that he had written all of her posts. He said:??
??
It was also determined that Lott had allowed reviews for his own book on Amazon to be written
by his wife and posted by his son. He said
??
??There is much more but this should be, for anyone interested in facts, enough to convince them of Lott’s worthlessness, or to at least make them do some work to find out more. There’s a reason we use his “statistics” as examples of how not to do modeling in our classes. Pretty much the same reason we use Murray and Herrnstein’s book “The Bell Curve” — all of their publications were written by people with an intent to mislead rather than inform.
“The AWB in the 90s having brought political destruction to one party, a new scapegoat must be brought forth for the slaughter. Enter “mental illenss”.”
Again — you are an idiot.
This should have been linked in my longer set of comments about Lott.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130304061928/http:/www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html
Also — I have no idea what I did to cause the random distribution of question marks in that post.
Refuting Bel Biv DeVoe who denies a move toward confiscation, I offer
A) Georgia House Bill 731:http://tinyurl.com/z86tkwk
B) Here’s a US Senator saying “turn em all in” http://tinyurl.com/qc7eceh
C) Here’s an Illinois congresswoman saying that assault rifles and handguns are on the menu: http://tinyurl.com/yd3ecwl8 (I guess she doesn’t understand that Illinois law is overruled by other states, according to some).
D) Here’s a Clinton Delegate recognizing that direct confiscation isn’t palatable, but that “common sense legislation” is a ruse towards confiscation: http://tinyurl.com/ybzy7lxd
I guess we’ll just have to trust them when they say “If you like your guns, you can keep your guns”.
Played this game in the AWB 90s…that dog still don’t hunt today. Keep pushing gun sales higher. The Trojan Horse method is worn out.
ron posts
– link to Daily Wire — nobody sane trusts a site hosted by neo-nazis, supremacists, racists, and paid liars
– link to Awakened to Truth — same comment as above
Third link would not open for some reason, so no information there.
ron, if you want to be taken seriously, don’t reference sites hosted by the worst people the country has to offer.
A is the Georgia Legislature http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/154275.pdf
B is youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI (video evidence)
C is youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUe6zkHQpTMBhiGPCiNA0qMg&v=BVz2lHODQvs (moar direct sourcing)
D is indeed the daily wire, which has the transcript AND the raw video http://www.dailywire.com/news/7828/exposed-hillary-delegate-reveals-anti-gun-agenda-pardes-seleh (direct evidence)
Good try.
How true, Mr Lambert. After the Red Horde has disarmed the
American public, the campaign for motor vehicles will be next;
under the seditious notion that these metal machines kill to
many folks (Barrocko euphemism).
After all, there is a massive movement toward Massless Transit.
Transit Tsar are gleaming with great expectations in filling their
all too many empty carriages, all under the guise of For the Safety
and Welfare of the People.
Social media, is also colluding with the Collective Transport Authorities
eager to split the massive captive revenue dollar.
Rejoice, my dear Red Friends, the Conservatives will surely fall and
America will take it’s place in The World of Socialists Nation.
As my beloved Father said, there is no limit in failureship – success commands a stout premium.
BBD the reference is to a commonly used aphorism. We are trying to have an honest and straight forward conversation here, not a nitpicking pedantic circle jerk. Ok?
I know what it is, nor am I nitpicking. Why are you having a go at me?
Thank you most kindly, Professor Laden !
Sorry, I thought you were nitpicking. Never mind.
Mentally ill people with guns are more likely to kill than mentally ill people without guns. I don’t see how that is relevant to the point that in a society with guns, it’s the mentally ill that are doing the killing. I have seen this mentioned, and it seems to be common in many killings that make the news, like Gabby Giffords. However, I think most of the killings are happening because of gang violence and drugs. Most of the counties in the US have very few murders despite having lots of guns.
Most of the killings are related to mental illness, actually. Not mass murderers by killers, but suicides and other things.
“An assertion shown to be incorrect by the actual research quoted in the OP.”
How does my rebuttal not address this? Almost zero of the guns owned by Americans are involved in anything untoward.
Ergo: guns do not kill people. Please offer a rebuttal.
“Most of the killings are related to mental illness, actually. Not mass murderers by killers, but suicides and other things.”
This implies that most, if not all suicides with guns, are by people with mental illness. Which implies that suicide is a mental illness. Do you really support that position?
Roger, you are attempting to force me into providing an incorrect answer to an inappropriate question. You may consider rephrasing.
In short, most of the suicides we are talking about vis-a-vis gun deaths are depression related. Depression is a mental illness. That is a good and accurate answer to a question you didn’t ask, but close!
An object has no agency,
Straw man.
“Ergo:”
Use of that word to prop up an “argument” as stupid as yours is amusing.
Look at the total homicide rate in these countries, and it is lower than the US rate for homicides without guns. Even if you eliminated every single death by gun, the US is still more violent.
Mike, that is probably true, and it is an important point. But, the overwhelming evidence shows clearly that the overwhelming amount of death, injury, and ruination of people’s life can be accounted for by the excessive guns. Note that in Australia the rates of these things went down when, and because of, the reduction of numbers of available guns. Your position is untenable and, actually, obnoxious.
“the overwhelming amount of death, injury, and ruination of people’s life can be accounted for by the excessive guns. Note that in Australia the rates of these things went down when, and because of, the reduction of numbers of available guns. ”
First, there are plenty of other possible explanations for differences in gun violence levels in these countries. Britain and Australia do not have intense poverty. They do not have such a startling stratification of wealth. The both have national health care systems. Neither has incredible poverty in their large cities combined with truly terrible education systems and gigantic unemployment levels with correspondingly high levels of drug use and gang involvement. All of these reasons increase suicide rates and gang/drug violence rates. Which accounts for about 5/6ths of our gun violence statistics.
Secondly, those countries do not have the 2nd Amendment. It just doesn’t disappear when you want it to. So, unless a miracle occurs, and the 100 million gun owners in America voluntarily give up their 350 million+ weapons, nobody is taking those guns away. Saying that if only we were more like Australia is magical thinking.
Meanwhile, back at the ballot box, millions of Republican voters pull the lever for Karl Rove’s candidates for one overwhelming reason: because they are certain that the Democrats want to take their guns away. Considering that we can’t actually do that, do you think it is the smartest election strategy in the world to keep reminding those rednecks how correct their analysis is? You know, when Democrats are at historically unprecedented depths of representation in just about every governmental entity we can name, including down to school boards?
If we do not elect a whole lot of non Republicans real fast, global warming is going to kill billions of people, species and a lot of what we consider civil society. One billion is a number approximately 2 million times larger than the number of people who die each year in the U.S. by mass shootings.
We were just talking about suicide. Seems to me that right now, Democrats talking about taking guns away as a campaign issue is a darn apt analogy. We should, pardon the expression, keep our powder dry.
Still repeating the rightwing meme about ‘taking guns away’ when all that is being suggested is:
– purchase vetting that actually works
– ban on paramilitary murder weapons
I *repeat*: nobody is arguing for the government ‘taking guns away’ as blanket policy. That really is NRA-speak.
So why do you keep repeating this meme? It’s not true.
BBD, we saw the laws that actually passed. Lots of onerous requirements that made gun ownership impossible in certain cities and states. Assurances by anti-gun liberals that they will not do that which they want to do are not very assuring. Barack Obama at least had some honesty saying in 2008 that you have nothing to worry about me taking your guns away because Republicans wouldn’t let him do what he wanted.
God, not you again.
The ‘taking guns away / disarming the population’ meme is a lie. This *fact* is not up for further discussion because, well, it’s a *fact*.
Bye.
” Lots of onerous requirements that made gun ownership impossible in certain cities and states.”
Nope.
“Britain and Australia do not have intense poverty”
A very large portion of the gun deaths in the US are not associated with poverty, and there is intense poverty in Aus and UK.
“They do not have such a startling stratification of wealth.”
I’m not sure how that relates to gun deaths. I don’t think extremely rich people are being shot by extremely poor people or anything like that.
“Secondly, those countries do not have the 2nd Amendment.”
That is certainly a factor. The second amendment in the US has caused the US and the states to be unable to respond as UK and Aus have to the rise of accessible powerful numerous firearms. But that is part of the problem, not an alternate explanation for it.
“Meanwhile, back at the ballot box, millions of Republican voters pull the lever for Karl Rove’s candidates for one overwhelming reason: because they are certain that the Democrats want to take their guns away. ”
That plus abortion and another issue or two, despite as you say they need not do that, or the gov has little to do with an issue, or the Democrats are internally diverse and divided (most of the gun loving people I personally know are Democrats, and most of the Republicans I know have no interest in them, interestingly).
WRT Britain you really have not been following tends have you?
Never mind maybe you can donate some ginger nuts to the Trussel Trust
But of course there are always the Lord Snootys who don’t get it as demonstrated by:
Yes compassion, but not coming from the direction of the party he belongs to, you know the one in power. Although how long they will remain so is an open question for already power is a questionable quantity as far as they are concerned.
“I *repeat*: nobody is arguing for the government ‘taking guns away’ as blanket policy. That really is NRA-speak.”
That statement simply does not comport with reality. PLENTY of well-meaning left-wing bloggers and columnists are calling for taking guns away from people. Thousands of people on Facebook and Twitter are doing the same, or posting hyperbolic anti-gun stats that are the opposite of targeted suggestions for gun control that do not take guns away from lawful owners.
When liberals (and just so you know, I am way to the left of most liberals) talk about banning “assault” rifles, they are talking about taking semi-automatic hunting guns away from tens of millions of Americans. And it also implies that all semi-automatic hunting guns, which have the same firepower as ugly “assault” rifles, will have no grounds for protection.
I’ll take it a step further: Almost no one, on either the left or right side of the aisle, is actually talking about rational gun control measures that 1) might actual improve gun violence and 2) have any chance of getting bipartisan support. And it is not easy to do so – there are a bazillion gun laws on the books right now. The latest mass shooter should have been denied the purchase of guns – the laws were already in place – but some glitch stopped the process from working.
This very post is the opposite of helpful. It forwards the oft-repeated idea that guns – all by themselves – kill people – that the U.S. high rates of gun violence are caused by high rates of gun ownership. This is ABSURD, because as I already have pointed out twice -> the percentage of American lawful gun owners involved with gun violence against another person is minuscule. The percentage of American guns involved in violence against another person is minuscule. Also seen normally intelligent, astute, well-educated scientists argue that guns make people stupid.
Can we just do the math? After every mass shooting, millions of words are printed by liberals shouting for all sorts of gun control. Almost zero of these words will amount to anything productive. But ALL of them propel rednecks to the ballot box. We simply can not afford to keep helping Karl Rove to win elections.
Who the fuck needs a semi-auto for hunting? You get one shot – two absolute tops and the game is gone. Bolt action is and has always been good enough for anyone who shoots well enough to be allowed to shoot at live game.
If you are talking about the Mini-14 (and I suspect you may be), then that thing is most definitely a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s basically no different from a civilian-market AR-15: same calibre, same ability to take a 30 round mag, same potential ~60 rpm rate of fire. You can even retrofit the damn things with a folding stock.
And .223 is too light for deer so what exactly do you hunt with a Mini-14? Vermin? Use a rimfire 22 pump.
Got chopped off:
So what? People on the internet spout bollocks all the time. We are talking about two things:
– vetting that actually works
– banning semi-auto assault rifles that have no legitimate civilian application (and yes, I’d include the Mini-14, which is as paramilitary in its design DNA and its looks and its features as a civvy-market AR-15)
That IS NOT a call for disarming the American people and you are not going to get away with pretending that it is, however far to the left of liberal you may be.
No, it is true. And it is a well-established truth at that. So when someone like you tells me that it’s ABSURD, I know I’m not being dealt from a straight deck.
“intense poverty”
Are you implying there is a fair bit of intense poverty in USA?
Lol.
Moreover, are you fucking hypothesizing people living in intense poverty are by some nature more violent in character than people who are not?
Cuz if you is, i wanna see stats.
Properly done stats too.
Good place to start would be people of the female gender in certain geographical locations ( Bihar perhaps, who are chronicly piss poor to an extent that would give the filthy fucking rich JJ and the Good Times mob nightmares, or any tramp on an American street who undoubtedly can get shitloads of nutrients from rubbish bins and have access to potable water to drink from any flush toilet.
GUNs KILL!! Yes you need people to pull the trigger, BUT…
Look at suicide..now pick up a knife and try cutting your wrist, just that allows most to be unsuccessful. Now use 9mm under chin and just pull…so easy, so successful!
School Assault…You know how to shoot…15round 9mm..how many are dead? Now no gun use knife, hell use sword…now how many dead? only the ones you can out run, and even then if you meet someone like me (sword/knife fighter) you will have a difficult time killing!
Guns make it not only easier & quicker to kill many, but you also have the impersonal distance to make it emotionally easier.
This.
Gun deadliness deniers seem determined to ignore the relevant adverbs here, such as ‘enable’, ‘facilitate’, ‘exacerbate’…
Also, if guns don’t kill, what are they for? Scaring people away with the loud noises that they emit? What’s the need for them if they don’t kill?
Guntown:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4T41M7cCqsU
(3 minutes)
What to do when there are multiple “good guys”?
http://tinyurl.com/yddoj3cj
Here’s the Detroit cop on cop kerfuffle…https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=95&v=0dFoQXCi3F0
Because they have been lied to for years by people with sub-normal levels of decency, integrity, intelligence, and above-normal levels of racist propaganda (the bit about crime steadily rising, that more guns means more safety, that a group of overweight “patriots” with guns would have any chance of resisting a government crackdown (also repeatedly lied about) against the modern military, or the incredibly stupid notion that good people with guns stop crimes every day. The NRA and its associated liars have a great PR program (which you seem to have bought into) that conveniently ignores data and reality and paints a picture that says the only thing that can get us out of the (fictional) dystopia we’re currently in is an abundance of guns.
Firearm ban did not work in WDC; Chirack; Jamamic nor Ireland.
The two examples provide by Mr Laden are indeed correct, however,
murder by guns is not a cultural or racial matter.
The author attempts to make a general case by focusing on a
convenient and very narrow base of examples.
https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
There are two facts that make your reference to “crime research dot org” worthless.
a) It was founded by John Lott, who has been repeatedly caught falsifying research and guilty of poor statistical analysis. It’s been pointed out here, but it is worth noting that several law schools and conservative “think tanks” have also labeled his work worthless.
b) The very first line at that site:
is shown to be a lie by even a minimal amount of work.
Work seems to be the key thing with you bill: you won’t do it, as you prefer to repeat the lies comfortable to you.
I have a couple comments above relating to the bogus claims from the website bill links to.
Martel Electronics engineers sheriff agencies with the longest lasting police dash camera system made in the US. Also, if you are searching for a law enforcement body camera, Martel produces the Frontline Cam. It’s a poby camera activation technology military grade officer worn system that’s been battles in police conflict zones like Chicago.
Right. Then there’s Chicago. Gun controllers paradise where they’re about to go over 600 homicides for the year.
How are those laws making life better? https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work
I don’t think Ron read the article he links to very closely …
Once again we hear the hopelessly stupid, idiotic, ignorant idea that gun control doesn’t work because Chicago has both high gun violence rates and high gun control. But 60% of guns used in crimes across Illinois came from states with lax gun control regulations…. so the states with weak gun control essentially over rule the gun control laws in Chicago.
So…Chicago laws are overruled by other states?
Do other states know this? Does Chicago even need a governing body, then?
These gun control laws are unenforced, for whatever reason, and only hurt the law abiding.
As I said, don’t confuse Ron with facts. It confuses him and he’s incapable of rational thought.
So liberals would like to pass Chicago gun laws in other states?
FWIW, Chicago:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/07/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-repeats-chicago-has-strongest-gun-la/
Don’t confuse Ron with facts. He doesn’t like that.
I don’t worry about calls to confiscate all firearms – even if there are actually any.
I do think most people who want gun control want something a little more nuanced.
We cannot ban handguns.
We cannot ban semi-automatic rifles.
We cannot ban shotguns.
We can ban machine guns (automatic guns) – because they have been banned in the past.
We can ban sawed off shotguns – because they have been banned in the past.
We can ban cop killer bullets (that is my personal opinion).
We can ban bump stocks (that is my personal opinion).
What else can we do?
We can beef up the databases and require the states to get their information to a central Federal database. Trying to stop the background check failure that happened in Texas – that would be a good step. Try to make sure all convicted domestic assaults are in the database, and all convicted felons.
We can require background checks on gun show sales.
You could probably require registration of transfer of title – say a grandpa gives a grandson or granddaughter a rifle or shotgun – you could probably require that be reported to either the state or federal level.
You could probably require registration of gun ownership in general – lots of people would complain – but in my personal opinion that doesn’t violate the 2nd amendment. Hard to pass the law – but not unconstitutional.
We can require the reporting of people who are mentally ill (this one is fraught with troubling issues) – an easy example – anybody who is not competent to take care of their own affairs – as decided by a court, shouldn’t be able to pass the background check to get a gun. I personally would have a problem with precluding anybody seeking treatment for PTSD or depression or other similar mental illnesses, from being able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights – but I am sure there are mental illnesses which would probably qualify.
I think the house and senate should put together bills for each issue separately and try to pass one thing at a time – starting from the most uncontroversial and moving on to the most controversial.
Dont’ put them all into one bill – it is harder to pass.
Lets try to fix the database issues first – that would be both actually useful and not very controversial.
That is my opinion anyway.
RickA,
Are you seriously calling for a greater “central Federal database”?
NICS is a joke! 32 prosecutions over 100,000 denials during 2 million NICS checks? http://tinyurl.com/y9zp6plv
Why strengthen a tool that doesn’t get used?
Why do you desire a mental fitness test in order to exercise rights? Do we need a mental fitness test for due process Rights/freedom to assemble/protections against search and seizure?
Stop being your own accuser, Rick, this is exactly what they want.
Yep.
I am opining on what is possible (not unconstitutional in my opinion).
We need a better nationwide database for people not eligible to vote also (at least for Federal offices).
Are you against that also?
I don’t think banning semi-automatic rifles is constitutional.
But there are things which could be passed which might help with mass shootings which I don’t think are unconstitutional.
Nobody has to take my advice – so feel free to ignore it!
Ron, stop posting links to sites run by liars and racists. Find someone with a shred of integrity (look it up if you don’t know what that word means) to support your crap. We don’t need to have all the crap your fellow conspiracy theorists try to send back spamming up our computers.
It’s math Dean.
2 + 2 = 4, even though you can’t comprehend anything conceptual, unchanging, universal products of a mind before your own. In short, mathematics doesn’t evolve. It existed prior to you, or me, or humans. Read the math. here’s the Obama DOJ report , which was linked in the first sentence of the link I provided, snowflake…https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1632.pdf
Math doesn’t evolve? Good god are you ignorant.
I will simply point out that you are ignoring the “math” (statistics, which I’d explain to you) that shows how
– guns in the home pose an elevated risk of injury to the home’s residents
– the “good guy with a gun stops crime” story is incredibly rare (and probably over-reported because of its rarity, as the occasional story gets passed around in slightly different retellings, which are eventually counted by supporters as different events)
You’ve already demonstrated that you don’t care about actual research, only your reality-denying opinions.
BBD, do you support banning AR15, along with the Mini?
What percentage of homicides are conducted with these guns you wish to ban?
Yup, both of them, and any other semi-automatic paramilitary rifle with a high capacity magazine.
Mass murders are committed with them. It is mass murders that prompt calls for bans on these weapons. Dear God. Are you dim or dishonest or both? Never mind. I’ve given up caring at this point.
I find it hard to believe that you call for the ban of these guns but would not later support a ban on guns that are involved in a much larger amount of murders.
Why? Mass murders are on the increase and the number of victims per shooting is rising because of the use of semi-auto rifles with large mag capacities. Since these things are otherwise useless (they are NOT hunting weapons) the obvious thing to do is to ban them in the interest of public safety.
Yes, I believe you would ban these guns. I don’t believe you would object to banning of other guns that are involved in far more murders.
It is absurd if you are determined to ignore (or, more likely, unable to understand) the studies that show rates of gun violence is strongly correlated to gun ownership. Given your commenting history I’ll put the chances at 50/50 you are ignoring compared to unable to understand.
Further refuting BBDs assertion that there’s no call to disarm, enter the AWB of 2017 ( http://tinyurl.com/y9n9b7zq) introduced by Turn Em All In ( http://tinyurl.com/gwymzko ) Senator Feinstein
Eh?
That’s a proposal to restrict paramilitary semi-auto weapons with large magazine capacities and folding stocks. Nothing to do with ‘disarming the American people’. The proposal is not for a blanket ban on guns.
You don’t really try to read for comprehension or make any attempt to be honest do you ron? The thing you posts suggests nothing at all similar to what you assert.
Good to see in the list of paramilitary semi-automatic rifles listed in Assault Weapons Ban of 2017:
How does “restrict” not square with “disarm”?
“If you have your gun, you can keep it?”
Step one is stopping the manufacture of units, Step two is calling in the old ones…
BBD:
I am glad this bill makes you happy. That is a good thing.
Very unlikely this bill will pass.
If it did, it would very likely be struck down as unconstitutional.
Did you notice the exemption for the US (i.e. military people or other Fed types who use weapons) and law enforcement? You couldn’t ask for a better reason to stick the law down. The 2nd amendment was so citizens would have the weapons used by the military – not so the military could have them, but not the citizens.
This bill is doomed – unless the 2nd amendment is repealed or changed.
Just my personal opinion.
We won’t know for sure until the Supreme Court has spoken.
How does ‘assault weapons’ equate with ‘all guns’? It doesn’t. So there’s no proposal to disarm (as in ‘ban *all* guns’). Just assault weapons (read your own effing link). NOT the same thing at all.
Please, read and understand your own links.
BBD axed:
“How does ‘assault weapons’ equate with ‘all guns’? It doesn’t.”
The term “assault weapon” is not defined in law. The AWB of 2017 seems to ban based on cosmetic characteristics:
‘(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capac-
21 ity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the
22following:
23‘‘(i) A pistol grip.
24‘‘(ii) A forward grip.
253
SIL17927. S.L.C.
‘‘(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable
1 stock.
2 ‘(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launch-
3 er.
4‘‘(v) A barrel shroud.
5‘‘(vi) A threaded barrel.
“Assault weapons” could seem to include a baseball bat, a pry bar, knives, or anything used to assault another person (I’ve seen pencil stabbings). Of course, the term “assault” implies criminality, where the Texas hero was using such a weapon in a defensive manner, very legally. So his may have properly been deemed a “defensive weapon” but there is also no legal definition for this because inanimate objects do not have moral agency and do not know if they’re being used in the commission of a crime or not. Therefore all guns are at once “assault weapons and defensive weapons”. But they are demonized as “assault weapons” to excite on the emotions of the logically infirm.
Restricting the manufacture, sale or transfer of these items is disarming, as they are not allowed to come to market. Now a black market is created with all the 3D technology available. How does one plan to stop such activity?
BBD, page 26 allows the
Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding or telescoping 17 stock or pistol grip)
Under ‘APPENDIX A—FIREARMS EXEMPTED BY THE
7 ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2017
So your exuberance is based simply on the stock and/or grip? The weapon functions in the same way, the plastic casing being slightly different.
Read the words you quote: semi-automatic is a *functional*, NOT cosmetic description. The ability to accept a detachable magazine is *functional*, not cosmetic. Pistol grip (rear) and forward are functional, not cosmetic design features (improves weapon control during rapid fire). Folding or tubular telescoping stocks are functional, not cosmetic (allows concealment of weapon / operation in a confined space).
Possession of one or more of these attributes is necessary for the weapon to qualify as an assault weapon.
I get the ever-stronger impression that you know absolutely nothing about guns, Ron.
BBD, as the expert on guns that you clearly are, can you please direct me to where I can get a rocket launcher for my rifle?
I apparently need to get one of these before they’re banned…not that this is disarming the populace…
“How does “restrict” not square with “disarm”?”
That is why you (especially you) need a dictionary.
Years ago, the NJ attorney general spoke at my high school, and had something to say about gun control. A questioner from the audience said the expected “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” In response, the AG pointed his finger like a kid playing cowboy and said, “Bang.” Nobody died.
That behavior is sometimes considered cause for discipline in many districts, but that’s “not disarming”…
A) http://tinyurl.com/kkd8r4x
B) http://tinyurl.com/y8pu6uqa
C) http://tinyurl.com/ap46n5a
Watch dean flip out…
ron, the fact that school administrators make stupid decisions is not a point in your favor.
The fact that you willingly lie, link to neo-nazi and racist sites, misrepresent the results of studies, and generally say things that are so far outside the bounds of reason that we begin to doubt your rationality are all points against you.
I assume that actually makes sense somewhere. Not in reality.
I get that interpretation from the Miller decision (307 U.S. 174 at page 179 (1939).
The Supreme Court said in Miller:
“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
So the weapons citizens are allowed to keep and bear under the 2nd amendment are the type which would be expected to be used in the military “at the time”. Of course this case could be overruled – but it hasn’t been yet.
Because sawed off shotguns were not “in common use at the time” by the military it was found to be ok to ban them. If they had been commonly used in the military – the Miller court would have found them protected under the 2nd amendment. The mob liked sawed off shotguns at the time, because they were easy to conceal under an overcoat.
You should look up Miller and read it – because that was the only 2nd amendment case until Heller, and still stands as valid precedent today.
Note Miller was not a part of the National Guard or other formal militia, but the Supreme Court didn’t use that to rule against him.
Right MikeN.
And now, since Heller and the subsequent cases, it has been made very clear that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not a militia right.
So the argument that only members of a miltia get guns is gone, unless the Supreme Court reverses itself (which I consider very unlikely).
God bless America
When a device that is supposed to be used for self defense is rarely actually used for self defense, but is, instead, increasingly used to commit massacres of civilians and other heinous crimes, one might consider it reasonable to question whether or not this device is due for some well regulated analysis.
In doing this analysis, one might start by trying to divine the meaning of the ambiguous words of long dead founders, men from a technologically very primitive landscape, men who were trying to deal with the politics of the days, such as the fears of slave heavy colonies. This would be tedious and probably fruitless task, except to the people who want to stall a reasonable analysis.
One thing about the constitution seems clearer to me than the second amendment. The founders put in place a mechanism to correct mistakes in the constitution. This leads me to wonder why we don’t start from the beginning, see what we really want and need, see if the second amendment matches these wants and needs, and, if it does not, craft an amendment to correct it.
We now have the ability to allow any average or sub average Joe, to have roughly as much firepower as an entire battalion of musket wielders. And this average or sub average Joe might be mentally feeble, emotionally unstable, or prone to violence. Does that make sense at all? Why or why not? It might make sense to gun and ammo manufacturers. BTW, what role in a well regulated militia was that mentally feeble, emotionally unstable, violence prone asshole in Texas fulfilling on Sunday last?
SteveP:
Yes – I agree.
Since the gun banning laws will get struck down (probably), then people who want gun control need to try to get the 2nd amendment amended or repealed.
Until then, there are laws which could be passed which don’t violate the 2nd amendment.
Unfortunately, any individual can always commit a crime – even mass murder. It is easier with a gun, but it looks like a truck can do serious damage as well (and bombs also can do serious harm as well).
We can all wish that sick people would just kill themselves in the first instance, rather than engage in multiple murders before taking their own life – but it is just a wish.
RickA
So how then did the 1994 AWB ban get passed? I know it only lapsed in 2004 because of its sunset provision – it was not ruled unconstitutional and struck down.
BBD:
I don’t think there was a court case. Nobody felt strongly enough about it to try to get the law struck down as unconstitutional.
At least I have never read anywhere that there was a court challenge to the automatic weapon ban.
Today, if a ban was passed on semi-automatic weapons, a lot of people would feel strongly enough to challenge the law (in my opinion).
You think that a lot of American citizens strongly believe that assault weapons should not be banned? Despite their now indisputable status as tool-of-choice for mass murderers and the lack of any legitimate civilian application?
You’re sure about this?
Yes.
The NRA was not willing to push such a case at that time. Indeed, even Heller was initially opposed by NRA because they felt it was a loser.
God bless America.
[misplaced above]
I *repeat*: nobody is arguing for the government ‘taking guns away’ as blanket policy. That really is NRA-speak.
BBD, it is because of gun grabbers practice of encroachment, time after
time, until there is nothing left to encroach.
The art of gun haters is to impair the 2nd amendment, until it has
little or no value. What supporters of a Police state love to do.
Everything is a mandate unless of course it is abortion.
The Lovers of Police Powers will bring on another bloody revolution.
Our external enemies are clapping with joy !
What can I say? You’re an idiot and apparently a paranoid nutter as well. Which renders actual conversation pretty much impossible.
It is, and it is completely false, but the NRA isn’t aiming at rational people with that line. They’re aiming at people who believe crime is increasing, that good guys with guns regularly stop crimes, and who spent 2008-2016 railing against the president because of his race rather than because of his policies.
If someone is stupid enough to believe the Clintons have been having enemies eliminated, that the UN poses a threat to the US, that taxes are too high — and lots of other items that are categorically false — you’re going to listen to the NRA.
Here’s a confiscation story: http://tinyurl.com/ya6gl9fq
East Coast: http://tinyurl.com/ybhvmqgc
West Si-eeeeede: http://tinyurl.com/yc73u5xe
http://tinyurl.com/y7t2gz3s
National application: http://tinyurl.com/y9lk6skv
Deny confiscation again!
You right…the Clinton’s wouldn’t stoop THAT low to get their way…they have too high a standard. How could anyone question their integrity?
“They’re aiming at people who believe crime is increasing, that good guys with guns regularly stop crimes” not so your Deanship! Firearm owns and
members of various weapon organizations do so for numerous reasons.
The first being that of personal responsibility to protect one’s family
and neighbors like you, Dean. When evil is just feet away, the authorities
are miles away. Firearm owners construct self-defense rather than the
air of collective security.
I can assure you, Dean, that if is form defense was not needed, I
would rather spend more money on my coin collection.
Hear is how the Circle of Exclusions works – not much different than
the hangman tightening of the noose.
“In a letter to The Providence Journal, Scituate resident Austin O’Toole wonders why The Ocean State’s waterfowl hunting laws — restricting shotguns to three shells”
Duffy Duck must have lobbyists ! Quack, quack Duck Power
What do we want? Three shell limits ! When do we want it? NOW!
Did anyone see this editorial?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/11/10/hand-over-your-weapons/6IxJLanMKGak7RvCLipwbN/story.html?et_rid=654126300&s_campaign=todaysheadlines:newsletter
http://abcnews.go.com/US/temporary-restraining-order-guns-stop-mass-shootings/story?id=51042163
http://www.king5.com/news/local/king-co-funds-task-force-to-get-guns-from-domestic-abusers/490023935
https://www.snopes.com/oregon-gun-confiscation/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/09/08/boston-police-confiscate-more-than-guns/sf4p76PjT4g4LnGUezx2oJ/story.html
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/california-s-unique-gun-confiscation-program-in-spotlight-after-texas/article_ccf0b1f6-4226-5652-b45c-a6d6bc5e1236.html
Good thing nobody is moving towards confiscation…
Deny confiscation again!
You right…the Clinton’s wouldn’t stoop THAT low to get their way…they have too high a standard. How could anyone question their integrity?
bill billson sez ” When evil is just feet away .. ”
Ah yes, domestic violence and child abuse. Nice one billy . Now of all the possible tools and mechanisms that might assist in this scourge , methinks a firearm or four lying around whilst an adult or child is being beaten or sexually assulted is a really usefull contribution to solving the problem. Adds a certain peaceful reserved calm atmosphere to the crime. A backdrop of civility in which differences can be resolved .
You stupid numpty….
FROM
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/11/06/park-forest-home-invasion-suspect-shot/
The investigation revealed that Brown went to the home to confront an ex-girlfriend, police said. He forced his way into the home, fired multiple shots and was shot in the leg when someone inside the home returned fire in self-defense.
Brown was taken to the hospital and subsequently taken into custody, police said. No other injuries were reported and no one that was inside the home at the time will be criminally charged.
===================
So here we have a domestic violence incident being stopped by a non-criminal with a gun, defending a lady from a gun wielding criminal…please feel free to deny that this occurs…
Moar Good guy stories…to refute the notion that they don’t happen regulrarly/frequently and to demonstrate how law-abiding citizens would become crime victims if they lacked the proper tools to protect their lives…
http://www.twincities.com/2017/11/07/would-be-robber-shot-by-victim-near-lowertown-park-st-paul-police-say/
http://abc7.com/panorama-city-resident-opens-fire-on-armed-home-invaders/2570016/ (at least 8 assailants…sounds like work for the AR-15
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/11/05/pellet-gun-attempted-robbery/ (Chicago?)
Hell’s teeth Ron.
This is what Dean has already written in response to your current line of trolling:
Read. The. Words.
Incredibly rare is one person winning the lottery. Self defense occurs multiple times a week, the opportunity being much greater than the lottery event. Are you comparing crime to lottery odds? (If we want exchange off-base analogies)
These events are not rare. More and more people are taking prescriptions, using substances to escape the misery of their economic situation. While crime rates may hold steady, an increasing population means more crimes. Centralized populations feel the brunt of the storm.
BBD astutely said, “What can I say? You’re an idiot and apparently a paranoid nutter as well. Which renders actual conversation pretty much impossible.”
Your own words mock your limited ability to extrapolate. I will say
nevertheless, that you would be an excellent cadre for the Red Horde.
Lightweight, with limited functions. Pickup your club – RESIST! RESIST!
Sorry Anonymous, was dolting Bill Billson. :>)
Three cheers for, Professor Laden !!!
Noble. Essentially never happens though – that’s why it is referred to as essentially a myth. Civilians with guns stopping crimes is a monumental rarity, despite what mouth breathers on the right keep saying.
Guns in a home being used against family members (by “responsible” gun owners) far outweighs the incidents of crime prevention/interruption.
Your DeanShip, it does happen, grant not in large frequency, nevertheless
it does. The first line of defense is oneself and not one’s “community or its
high priced LEOs.
The Ministry of Propaganda, simply does not report the very few of these
events – for whatever.
Also, if needed to keep governmental units in check. (NSA bots please
disregard the last statement author is Bipolar)
I should add, that most murderers are secularists, as are their
cousins in the pen.
When morals fail, as they have in the past three decades, the
nation state goes into a steady decline.
The Vandals are on the way – Roma, is in great peril.
Time is fleeting, Will Robinson!
That is essentially what I said, although you still over emphasize the frequency.
Conspiracies of silence appeal only to the ignorant. (So no surprise you make that statement.)
The notion that a collection of overweight ‘militia members’ could mount any meaningful opposition to a modern army is massively stupid. The ‘resistance’ would be eliminated before they realized they were being monitored.
Widely believed among some, I would guess. Supported by fact — doubtful.
False premise here — the cry ‘morals are no longer observed’ has been raised since the time of the Greeks, with no more validity then than now.
What is currently burning the right is that people are less tolerant of their racism, bigotry, misogyny, and other vile habits. Your cry of “morals are gone” is simply code for “Waaah, I can no longer harass women, insult minorities, mistreat the handicapped, or make fun of people with mental issues with impunity. I want to be a bigot and have enjoy it. Bring back the old days.”
Get over it. Decency has passed far beyond people like you — not that you ever cared about decency in the first place.
BillBilly, was apparently feeling Arabian. Note:
“I am against my brother, my brother and I are against my cousin, my cousin and I are against the stranger”
Bedouin saying
There’s another saying, “Blood begets blood” but I doubt that BBy gets its import.
Professor Laden said “3) We can and will if necessary repeal the 2nd. People are getting fed up.”
Yes, one or two Judgeships in the Uber Court. It will not be the will of the folks,
but rather an administrative ruling, much like that on BarrockoCare by Judge without courage Roberts.
It will be the start of the next Revolution, with blood and corpses more
abundant than ordinary litter.
Professor Laden, your own dogma will consume you and your movement.
Just axe Herodotus.
MikeN said “The NRA was not willing to push such a case at that time. Indeed, even Heller was initially opposed by NRA because they felt it was a loser.”
They did not support the Chirack lawsuit, either. They badly need a spinal
tap. They are chateau gun elitists and that is the prime reason we did
not submit our membership.
The biggest supporters of Gun Squashers are governmental
units and criminals. Why you axe? Because both makeup
their own rules.
The Australian Maritime Ministry just announced that any
sinking of passenger ships with the loss of life, will result
in the immediate banning and confiscation of ocean liners.
Your Deanship:
“That is essentially what I said, although you still over emphasize the frequency.”
Then why do Americans purchase firearms – solely for demonstrations?
To anger your sensibilities? To be counter intuitive? Stupidity?
The last massicide was stopped in part because of a neighbor whom owned
a weapon.
Firearms are there just in case: so are spare tires; insurance; fire hydrants;
life vests. Really, the list is almost endless; as is the progresso justice
tyranny.
“Conspiracies of silence appeal only to the ignorant. (So no surprise you make that statement.)”
If you believe that the MSM is impartial, Your Deanship, then you
are either blissfully ignorant or holy bias. The MSM or MOP, are allies
and wholly owned by the Red Horde. Even kindergarteners acknowledge
that fact.
“The notion that a collection of overweight ‘militia members’ could mount any meaningful opposition to a modern army is massively stupid. The ‘resistance’ would be eliminated before they realized they were being monitored.”
A Community Militia (does dat not sound better), would indeed offer
little resistance to military forces put into the field. The real question
would be, are troops going to fire upon their fellow citizens and if so,
for how long?
There is unfortunately a long history of indigenous urban dwellers
uprisings, wherein local authorities lost complete and utter control.
None of them were under the auspices of Conservatives; directly
or indirectly.
“Widely believed among some, I would guess. Supported by fact — doubtful.”
So you do not believe that secularist commit the majority of crime?
The empirical data is not only present but can be cullied from
many penitentiaries data base.
Why the latest school killings was committed by a convicted felon.
I should point out, Your Deanship, during the Rod King riots, Asian
shopkeepers (Koreans) secured their property and valuables, by
mounting an arm defense, wherein other parts of LA Land burnt
to the ground. (No Justice, No Peace) (No Sauce, No Pizza)
I should add, that a conventional army loses its utility in an urban
setting.
“False premise here — the cry ‘morals are no longer observed’ has been raised since the time of the Greeks, with no more validity then than now.”
Empires and morals standards are like the sea levels – they rise and fall.
“What is currently burning the right is that people are less tolerant of their racism, bigotry, misogyny, and other vile habits. Your cry of “morals are gone” is simply code for “Waaah, I can no longer harass women, insult minorities, mistreat the handicapped, or make fun of people with mental issues with impunity. I want to be a bigot and have enjoy it. Bring back the old days.”
So, only the Right commits vile acts, Your Deanship? You have simply
replaced the moral code, for your Urban Indigenous Social Justice
Campaigning ethos.
Whom are committing most of today’s sex crimes – why Dean, it is
your friends in kind, Harveywood and the Demco Party.
You, sir, are not a truth seeker but only an agenda driven statist;
who thinks that each and every shortcomings can be addressed
with a governmental unit fiat.
Furthermore, the responsible people are too busy laboring to
purse the activities you described but rather your friends and
colleagues whom host upon the backs of worker bees.
” Get over it. Decency has passed far beyond people like you — not that you ever cared about decency in the first place.”
I am an indecent Christian, whom faithfully violates the tenants
of the words of my Savior Jesus Christ, to pursue the sport of
denigrating my fellow man. So it was written, by the great
prophet and demagogue, Dean.
You lack any sense of Decency, Dean. You level charges and indictment
against anyone whom is not of the same mind. You would have
been a choice hireling of Beria.
You, comrade, are an insult to any form of decency but then since most
of your subject matters are subjective – a lie or two or being specious
are the only foundations to support your hairbrain arguments.
Please, do not foster your bi polar on me, nor your bitterness; your
fears and hateful rhetoric; your daily existence must certainly be a struggle.
That being said, Your Deanship, you are welcome to come to my
clinic for counseling and if necessary – treatment. I suspect the
latter will be in order.
It should comfort you, that my staff is compliant with GLADD guides
as well as with LGBTQ America. My staff also consist of 53% minorities,
80% female. We are also seeking well qualified transgender employees
as well. Dean, I not only hope you approve of our socially inclusive
workforce but also become a client of ours.
Oh, yes of course, we do accept EBT cards!! Credit scores nor
bankruptcy will not impair your service.
There’s a very strong smell of SOCKS in here.
” I am an indecent Christian, whom faithfully violates the tenants
of the words of my Savior Jesus Christ, to pursue the sport of
denigrating my fellow man… ”
Jeez!
This is like a condensed history of English character, as a generalization.
Such grotesque hypocrisy…
” …. Red Horde. ”
Hahahahahaha
Menzies been gone a long time. Noone talks like that except loons on CFACT.
Off topic. Recently .A hairdresser was cutting my hair and making chit chat whilst doing so.
Said ” ohhhh them diggers would turn in their graves if they knew the port ( some small port thousands of kays away ) was sold ( leased in reality ) to China.
I said ” er why? Stralias never been at war with China and were sometimes allied. ”
I dont know if she was projecting racism or politics or some other weird shit onto
diggers. Who gives a stuff if some Chinese company leases a port when there is no history of animosity.
The statement would make half sense if it was some German or Japanese or Italian or Vietnamese or Turkish company.
She shut up anyhow which was good.
“Red Horde. Even kindergarteners acknowledge
that fact. ”
Nothing demonstrates your stupidity as directly as that comment — not even your ignorant comments about the value of a militia against an organized military.
Scarier, honesty scary, is your assertion that you are “counseling” people for some reason or another. I cannot imagine how much damage you are doing to vulnerable people with your uninformed and completely worthless “help”.
I know there are charlatans around — the entire “alternative medicine” world is is built around them, but to read your inane blathering about morals, Christianity, unfounded assertions about lack of morals when you lie without remorse — it is quite sad that you have access to people who need help, think they are getting help, but are paying you and receiving nothing more than the ravings of a morally bankrupt conspiracy theorist.
The latest massacide, a beige cracker with both
a felony and head problems.
We liberated the nations from mental facilities and
now the patients are returning their gratitudes.
“Nothing demonstrates your stupidity as directly as that comment — not even your ignorant comments about the value of a militia against an organized military.”
My minor was military history, General Dean. Your expertise is so
lacking you need to be sent to basic training or Head Start.
“Scarier, honesty scary, is your assertion that you are “counseling” people for some reason or another. I cannot imagine how much damage you are doing to vulnerable people with your uninformed and completely worthless “help”. ”
I am simply the director of the clinic and have no medical degree
or licence. Please be assured that in no way, do I practice nor
interact with our clients.
“nothing more than the ravings of a morally bankrupt conspiracy theorist.”
Saint Dean, which conspiracy are those ??
You should try to control your doltish phobia, about your opposition
lying to you. It is an all too much rendition in your comments.
It may effect your mental health in numerous ways.
How long have you had this compulsion??
Can you make a single comment, without a slur or defamation?
Can you make an effort to effectively communicate in a civil
manner?
Are willingly able to live next to your neighbor, without
placing mandates upon them.
Will you cease you pogrom against Conservatives?
Saint Dean, your opinions (the real value of your input) are
so toxic the EPA should regulate you.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn.
Troll baby, troll.
“Will you cease you pogrom against Conservatives?”
Again, the use of words like “pogrom” indicate you have a seriously deluded notion of the state of reality. Nobody is giving slurs against you, the comments are statements of fact based on your ramblings.
“My minor was military history”
How much did it cost you to get them to let you pass? It clearly wasn’t based on any rational thought on your part.
There’s something weirdly familiar about ‘bill’. Maybe a foetid whiff from Deltoids gone bye? But something.
In 2016 President and Vice President committed to using every tool at the Administration’s disposal to reduce gun violence. By increasing the Mental Health Treatment but also start reporting to the Background Check System. (The White House Office of the Press Secretary ) Current laws in the United States prohibits an individual from purchasing a firearm due to mental health issue. The individual could be a danger to themselves or to the public. The Social Security Administration has begun the rule making process to ensure that the correct information is getting reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The Social Security Administration is expected to cover approximately 75,000 people each year that have documented mental health issues, received disability benefits. The government plans to remove unnecessary barriers preventing States from reporting relevant to the background check system. (The White House Office of the Press Secretary )
Um jeez this reminds me strongly of the Intervention ( which noone ever talks about ever in polite circles ).
Wondering how this stuff you mention affects Americans with post natal depression? Heaps of them.
Wondering how it affects Americans who kill animals for fun in various ways. Heaps of them too.
Wondering how it affects Americans with an addiction to something?
Wondering how it affects Americans with some conditions prevelant in elderly people?
Or Americans with invisible friends?
” ..reminds me strongly of the Intervention ”
By this i mean a system of people involuntarily being assigned to a tier of
things they can t do , whilst not actually being charged or even be accused with any crime. Just somehow a bit afforded the same consumer practice as others. Sort of like being under 18.
Just because of some sort of characteristic. ( In the Interventions case it was location of dwelling )
“please feel free to deny that this occurs”
Read for comprehension ron. Nobody, not even me, said it doesn’t happen. What is said is that it is incredibly rare, nowhere near the numbers the NRA and supporters claim. it makes the news for precisely that reason, and gets amplified so that the impression is that it happens every day.
It is no more a base for supporting availability of weapons than the occasional story that “person X was in a high speed accident where the top was sheared off her car and burst into flames but she walked away and wasn’t killed because she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt” is an argument against seat belts.
The possibility of it happening deters criminals.
Bzzzzt! Evidence-free assertion!
“The possibility of it happening deters criminals”
That’s why i always carry a DD gaming die when I walk in the woods. The possibility of immense power on my part deters bears.
Oh, no, Demcos wouldn’t take your firearms away !!
LIES AND MORE LIES! Why just axe Mama Findestien.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/11/johannes-paulsen/democrats-new-assault-weapon-bill-would-ban-the-glock-17-more-semi-auto-pistols/
Bill find a link that isn’t to some dishonest loon or hosted by the scum of the earth.
Johnny Applesauce said “Bedouin saying
There’s another saying, “Blood begets blood” but I doubt that BBy gets its import.”
I stopped quoting Muslame society since the Middle Ages; the last
they contributed to mankind.
Dean said “Bill find a link that isn’t to some dishonest loon or hosted by the scum of the earth.”
Was it the website or the content which so grossly offended you?
Or does a denunciation simply substitute for a robust debate,
especially when circumstances are not favorable ?
“Was it the website” Yes. I never lend support to the worst people the country has to offer, although you clearly enjoy it.
Ron said “Incredibly rare is one person winning the lottery. Self defense occurs multiple times a week, the opportunity being much greater than the lottery event. Are you comparing crime to lottery odds? (If we want exchange off-base analogies)”
A first round knockout of challenger BBD and still the Heavyweight Champion !!
If said self defense with a gun occurred several times a week it would be least see than now but still not common . There is no evidence it occurs several times a week however.
“A first round knockout of challenger BBD”
Not at all, simply a demonstration that neither ron nor you have any clue about statistics or probability or facts.
Your Deanship, hear are both statistics and facts for
your perusal.
NBC: “Gun Violence” Costs $2.8 Billion Per Year (As Opposed to $1 Trillion Saved by DGUs)
“In the video below, NBC News reveals the “astronomical health care costs of gun violence.” According to the report, “gunshot injuries cost Americans $2.8 billion per year.” The soft spoken narrator somehow forgets to put that stat into perspective. Setting aside questions of [monetary] inflation, I refer gun truth-seeking readers to a 2012 article by TTAG writer Bruce Krafft’s post Defensive Gun Uses Save the U.S. One Trillion Dollars Per Year. Here’s the relevant excerpt”
“According to the AZ state gov’t, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.
So figuring that the average DGU (defensive gun use) saves one half of a person’s life—as“gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.
Putting this all together, [using a low estimate of 1.88 million DGUs per year] we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly 1.02 trillion dollars per year. Trillion. With a ‘T’.
That’s a net savings of $997.2 billion. Think. Indeed.”
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/11/robert-farago/nbc-gun-violence-costs-2-8b-per-year-as-opposed-to-1t-saved-per-year-by-dgus/
Now, Your Deanship, you can see why Rons arguments are
very sound and yours are unfortunately defective and subject
to a governmental unit recall.
“using a low estimate of 1.88 million DGUs per year]”
No, that’s simply a lie put out by people as dishonest as you and ron. The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey gives the number at about 67,740 times a year, and there is evidence that number is inflated.
What sort of defect caused you to become so dishonest?
His Deanship said “What sort of defect caused you to become so dishonest?”
I am not sure Dean but but I think it was global warming!
You never cite any links, to support your points.
A fresh view on where and why gun violence occurs.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452987/reducing-gun-violence-focus-high-crime-areas-likely-criminals
“A Tennessee man accidentally shot himself and his wife Thursday during a discussion at their church about gun safety concerns.”
This apparently happened 4 days ago in Tennessee. The couple were in their 80’s.
Just another example of how the NRA and their supporters work tirelessly to make sure that there are loaded guns in the hands of incompetents, criminals, children, violent felons, violent non-felons, and clumsy people. Guns for all, all for guns.
Guns, after all, don’t kill people. Loaded guns are what kill people.
Here’s a cop shooting himself in a classroom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0
Here’s a cop in an elevator popping himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG3ZDOWeiG8
Finger off: https://www.local10.com/news/off-duty-miami-police-officer-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-finger
When you stop respecting the weapon, injuries occur.
Let’s think about this. These 5 MSDH shooting survivors, by pure indignation, thrust themselves into the spotlight, organized protests and marches and numerous other PR candy events, and attack not the essence of the problem, but an easily manipulated symbol of the problem, ie: AR-15 style rifles, NRA, 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Did they pool their lunch money to propel this so successfully into the public eye and the gullible mind? Pretty sure Leftist Institutions provided, no, funneled millions, not to “save children” as their primary goal, but to further their long term agenda of disarming law abiding American citizens. Do you applaud these children’s challenge to a “failed” system? They ARE the system. Their’s are the new faces on an old conflict. Their pleas and concerns have been hijacked, exploited, and choreographed. Their noble intent to spark discussion or debate on gun laws has turned to shouting demands and challenges while being punctuated by fist pumps, rants, and threats of a revolution which served only to agitate an already emotionally charged rally.
I think it’s fair to say that we can all rest easy while these collected, well informed minds determine policy and law for everybody. In their infinite wisdom, they have identified the real culprits in this tragedy; first was the gun, then the NRA, then the Second Amendment, finally the law abiding U.S. citizen. Having served their cause faithfully, we can turn our hearts to that other victim, Nicolas Cruz, and let him go free. Apparently, he isn’t the problem.
I agree that the kids are being used.
But I still applaud the kids for protesting, even if they will probably fail to ban assault weapons (as failed in Florida).
It is probably a healthy response to the tragedy, and who knows, they may make a difference.
Perhaps on the issue of bump stocks, or background checks.
One of the kids is pro second amendment, and I imagine he will be “used ” also.
Both sides are always looking for issues and people which help their “cause”.
That is normal and to be expected.
In a different thread, I suggested using a count on the number of gun purchases within a time period as a trigger for further investigation.
Cruz bought 10 guns in less than two years (I believe).
Right now we do not capture that data – but 10 guns, coupled with his age, social media behavior is much more interesting to officials than the same stuff without any guns (to me anyway).
At least that “fix” would go to the issue of stopping another Cruz shooter, where a lot of the other fixes have nothing to do with, and would not have stopped Cruz.
I choose to ignore comparisons with other countries. As with statistics, anybody can search until they find data that works for them. America is distinctly different from any other country in so many ways it serves no legitimate purpose to make comparisons. Most countries were not born through violent revolution from a tyrannical, overbearing government.
Virtually every country has embraced slavery at one time or another, and, to our discredit, America did as well. I feel that our Democracy was in its infancy at that time, and as we matured, many realized the inhumanity in recognizing ownership of other humans. As this realization grew more and more common, resistance remained unflinching. What followed was the bloodiest battle had by America to date. Not led by a rebellion of slaves, but by those who understood the immorality of slavery and that it was at enormous odds with the ideals of our country. Again, and unfortunately, our advancement as a Democracy required that we take up arms to stand for what we believe.
But we did! And not every gun that was fired was wielded by a soldier.
Indeed, morality cannot be legislated anywhere. The founding fathers know this as well or better than anyone. It is ALWAYS a personal choice. Personal choices should be protected ( see first amendment). Unfortunately, this can be done most decisively by the individuals’ right to bear arms. I believe it is phrased as “We the people…”, not “We the armed government…”, for a reason.
Our government’s charter is different as a whole from every other country. Why are we looking to others’ for examples?
If you don’t understand, or haven’t read, the studies, you shouldn’t make this type of comment.
By golly you good at pushing buttons.
Virtually every sentence you write is pure bollocks.
Anyhow, this… “…required that we take up arms to stand for what we believe.”
is a highpoint of seriously shit thought.
You would seem to applaud this mechanism of change in the name of democracy or some other belief.
And so you would cheer on armed conflict on behalf of say females, demanding equal rights to vote and other liberties?
Guess what sunshine. There are in fact other successfull mechanisms to achieve goals dictated by belief, that dont nessessitate blowing people away and destroying infrastructure.
By fuck american exceptionalists are truely missing a big part of their brain.
Take your nukes and infantile reasoning and piss off, stupid fucking yanks.
Its time to be adults, not four year olds.
As is the comment about ignoring the studies. It’s a sure bet that he ignores them not for the reason he says, but because conclusions aren’t conclusions he likes.
Of course you do, they are inconvenient for your narrative.
As for the rest of your disgraceful deflection accusing victims of being the tools of a leftist (your words which betray your ideological bent) it ignores the origin of this movement and the background of two of the lads who were victims.
BTW, “AR-15 style rifles, NRA, 2nd Amendment of the U.S.”, that is three symbols not one, whatever each is at fault in its own way for reasons covered in comments below many recent articles on this issue. You should read every one starting with the articles.
Yeah, the notion that all of this kids are being “manipulated” is disgusting, and dishonest. That’s the reason it’s all over the right wing, the same as all of the doctored photos of them the teabaggers and ‘patriots’ (read both to mean scum of the earth) are circulating.
Crisis actors -> manipulated kids.
Rhetoric evolves in an attempt to make fringe lunacy seem legitimate. But it’s still conspiracist ideation 🙂
Funny what my search crawler turns up from time to time.
“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.” – Voltaire
And so the killing continues, apace.
‘Tragedy upon tragedy’: why 39 US mass shootings already this year is just the start
The rising trend can be seen in the linked Gun Violence Archive
And still some persist in hiding behind a supposedly inviolable Second Amendment using logic free arguments.
The gun violence continues apace, and so do baseless arguments that any measure proposed to reduce the problem of gun violence (it will never be completely eliminated) is part of a “librul” plot to take everyone’s guns away.
I’m still seeing such arguments in comments on Washington Post articles. Just yesterday someone posted links to two pro-gun sites. They both looked reasonable to me, but one of them had a blog list that included many suspect sites. One was “The View from North Central Idaho.” Its introduction includes the patently false statement that “They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.” “They” meaning people advocating gun control, whom the blogger calls “our enemies.”
It is this kind of lying that, if it becomes prevalent, will doom the Second Amendment.
And you will see right wingers who spend more time in a fantasy world than reality making up asinine scenarios to “explain” why people with a history of domestic or other assault, or of making threats due to mental issues, or bring up the “what about all the good people with guns defending themselves” [exaggerating by implication how often that happens] in order to block any intelligent discussion on this issue. Every time you think modern conservatives can’t get any worse they prove you wrong.
Sad. But murder doesn’t change the text or meaning of the 2nd amendment. The government cannot infringe the peoples right to keep and bear arms. If you want to change that you have to change the 2nd amendment. That is not logic free – but instead logical.
Still – murder is bad and mass murder is even worse. Bummer. It doesn’t really matter whether they do it with a gun, a knife or a bomb – it is still bad and a bummer. That is why there are laws against it. But sometimes laws don’t make a difference. That is regrettable.
If laws didn’t make a difference, pro-gun people wouldn’t be arguing against proposed gun regulation, or arguing for better enforcement of existing laws.*
Yes, people killed with a bomb, a knife or a baseball bat are just as dead. But it’s a fact that most mass killings in the U.S. are done with guns — and specifically with AR-15-type rifles. The reason is that such weapons make it easy to kill multiple people quickly from a distance.
Therefore, a good interim step would be to prevent people whose behavior shows violence from buying or owning guns. This would not affect the great majority of gun owners; they handle their guns responsibly. But the rabidly pro-gun faction won’t buy that.
* The rabidly pro-gun faction objects to all preventive measures, like red-flag laws. But they always want more enforcement of punitive laws. What’s wrong with this position? Punitive laws won’t bring the victims back to life; preventive laws will keep some of them alive.
Why the hell do you think I wrote,
?
Have amendments never been changed? Well you have proven my point with your block head, yet anticipated, response.
Christopher:
You think it would be good to prevent people “whose behavior shows violence from buying or owning guns”. What does that mean to you – exactly? I am assuming you mean something like a wife beater. What if a wife beater is obeying the restraining order and keeping the proper distance from the wife – but lives in a terrible neighborhood where his life is threatened daily? Does he lose his right to self-defense because of the restaining order? I think this situation will be resolved in favor of the guy having a 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms – but not in violation of a restraining order – but yes in all other situations. We will see.
What if I have had my arm broken by a guy wielding a bat and I use my handgun to shoot him in self-defense. No charges – the defense of self-defense found valid in my case. But I have shown violence (in self-defense). Do I lose my right to further self-defense? I don’t think so. So I think you need to narrow down your criteria – it is to broad.
As for red-flag laws – what about a teen who is depressed and prescribed a medication. When he turns 21 he wants a handgun for self-defense. Should he lose his right for self-defense because he sought mental health and was prescribed a drug? I don’t think so. A lot of red-flag laws seem overly broad to me. Again – we will see.
Red-flag laws are what I’m talking about — and so are you, throughout your comment. Red-flag laws operate on a case-by-case basis: someone (usually a family member) petitions for a court order temporarily taking the guns away. A judge has a hearing and either issues the order or doesn’t. In the first hypothetical case you mention, I imagine the judge might order the wife beater to stay away from where his wife lives but keep his gun. It’s hard to be definitive without knowing more.
I don’t see how red-flag laws even apply to your other two cases.
A big problem with Red Flag laws is they are ex parte and do not require any crime to be implemented – without a chance to defend yourself.
The 2nd amendment is a fundamental right. Try to imagine a hearing to take away your right to free speech – ex parte (without the right to defend yourself). Or taking away your right to go to church or practice your religion in some way. Or taking away your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. All without your knowledge or even the chance to defend yourself in court. That is what red flag laws do.
It is my opinion that you cannot take away a fundamental right, such as the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th amendments without due process – which means it cannot be done ex parte and without the right to defend yourself in court.
Can you imagine trying to civilly commit a person because they are not competent – but without the right to defend yourself (ex parte)? That is a pretty good analogy to what red flag laws are trying to do – take away your freedom to defend yourself without due process and a chance to defend yourself in court.
I don’t think they are going to fly and ultimately I believe they will be found to only operate when the person could be found incompetent (i.e. they are so mentally ill they can be committed to a mental institution) or to have committed a crime with their threatening behavior (i.e. they can be put in jail anyway). Then you can take their guns away.
Of course that is just one person’s opinion. I am sure this line of caselaw will develop and there will be multiple supreme court cases on this issue in due course.
Christopher:
You said “The gun violence continues apace, and so do baseless arguments that any measure proposed to reduce the problem of gun violence (it will never be completely eliminated) is part of a “librul” plot to take everyone’s guns away.”
I thought you were talking about laws (any measure proposed). I have not seen anybody propose to change the 2nd amendment (yet). Can you point me to that proposal. All I see are people proposing laws which violate the current 2nd amendment – which seems counterproductive to me.
But if you are proposing changing the 2nd amendment as a proposed measure – that is great! That is the right way to move forward. What is your proposed 2nd amendment language?
It is going to be a tough battle for you and your team. Good luck to you!
The Second Amendment can be read in several ways, and it’s really only recent Supreme Court decisions that have interpreted it to mean that individuals have a right to own guns. It says “The People,” which has been interpreted by some cases to mean a collective, or a community, may store the guns in an armory. Logically, that ties in much closer to the Well-Regulated Militia clause.
It doesn’t specify that there may be no regulations, either. This is one of those concepts of freedom that can be dependent on the makeup of the courts to define.
Also, as a note, there is a key difference between confining a person and taking a weapon from them. My freedom of movement is not impeded by my lack of guns. It doesn’t confine me. It is perfectly reasonable to restrict the ability to own a gun if a person has demonstrated that they have indicated through words or actions that they will likely use the weapon in an aggressive, rather than defensive, manner.
The 2nd Amendment is not, as you imply, the absolute right to own whatever weapon is available that fires bullets or shot through a barrel. It’s vague, and people have been arguing over its meaning since it was passed.
The Supreme Court said it was an individual right – so that is that. It also fits in nicely with most of the rest of the amendments being individual. But yes – it is possible that sometime in the future a different Supreme Court could overturn the individual right ruling and rule it is only a militia right. But that is very unlikely in my opinion. But hey – I might turn out to be wrong in the future.
Yes – some regulations will be found reasonable – because they do not infringe the right to keep and bear. For example, getting rid of the gun show loophole doesn’t stop people from keeping and bearing. Registration doesn’t stop people from keeping and bearing. Banning handguns inside an entire city or state does. Ditto for rifles or shotguns. Banning handguns in a school or posted private building does not (but cops get to carry in schools). I am actually a bit doubtful that banning guns in government buildings will fly – but that hasn’t been challenged yet.
As for your movement argument – that also applies to speech. Your speech could be taken away and you would not be confined. But since speech is a fundamental individual right I don’t see such an interpretation coming anytime soon. Since the right to keep and bear is also a fundamental individual right you cannot take it away without giving the person affected the right to defend themselves in court. So the ex parte red law provisions will no doubt be struck down. Way to broad and vague to pass strict scrutiny. That is just one person’s opinion.
But sure – if you can prove in court, after the defendant has a chance to defend – that the person is likely to use the weapon in an attack, say on a school or business or just people in general – yes you can take away their weapons. You would probably be able to put them in jail – because even the planning to do something like that is illegal. They might even be found crazy and committed.
So in the meantime, people who object to the current version of the 2nd amendment should try to change it, rather than pass a lot of laws which are clearly unconstitutional on the current understanding of the 2nd amendment. But that is just my opinion. It will be a very very difficult uphill fight and I wish good luck to those who try to change the 2nd amendment.