’)In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
“Wild West gun policy” was generally that you surrendered a sidearm to the local law enforcement when within town limits. Both Bill Hickock and Wyatt Earp required guns to be surrendered in their jurisdictions. The “Gunfight at the OK Corral” was in part over the Clantons’ refusal to give up their guns.
The NRA would go crazy if Wyatt Earp were still in charge.
John Lott wrong again
Whenever I’ve asked someone who owns a gun for protection to walk me through the tactical situation where they would use a gun and how it would work out for them, I’ve never gotten a coherent answer. Add a family with kids and the locked gun locker (at least I sure as hell hope so) and it gets even more ridiculous.
Well it makes people “feel” safe I suppose, but I have always added that guns always complicate or make a situation more dangerous. Can’t wait for this to be derided by the NRA. Arm the babies for Christ sake!
LOL,
Y’all believe what you want to believe and do as you please. If being unarmed makes sense to you and you feel safer, far be it from me to argue with you as long as you don’t try to interfere with my rights. Personally I prefer not to be at the mercy of criminal lowlifes but that’s just me. Nobody has a higher priority for my self interest than me. My first line of defense is not going to be a government employee, I prefer more competant help.
Wingnuts have a fantasy of ‘protecting’ their homes where the bad guy gets blown away and they get to kill with a clean conscience. Not that it’ll ever happen, but it’s something they can say they’ll do to impress.
Actually had someone try to break in my home one night when I was home. My car was in the shop so I assume the person(s) that’d been casing me thought I was gone. I yelled “Fuuuuck!!!” just because it came to mind – hey, I felt scared – and the person(s) took off. I did grab my revolver, though. Took a defensive position and called the cops. The would-be-thief even unscrewed my outside light bulbs so I couldn’t see out.
Regardless of this episode I’m sure there is nothing in my house worth getting killed over. I don’t think anyone wants my guitar, amp and surfboards enough to risk bullet holes. Nor do I think they’d have killed me to take possession of these few pricey things I own. And lastly, I don’t want to kill someone that just wants my gear and not looking for a confrontation with me. Although I obviously don’t mind thieves sitting in prison for awhile.
‘Personally I prefer not to be at the mercy of criminal lowlifes but that’s just me.’
How does one know the difference? Presumably you, as a law abiding non-lowlife has a bigger gun than the criminal lowlife?
How do explain countries that don’t have a ‘right’ to guns having lower crime rates and incidents of gun related deaths and injuries?
I guess they just don’t ‘get it.’
‘CompetEnt’ help, AO.
Seriously though, this sort of study keeps showing up again and again. Maybe it’s more dangerous to have a firearm because when you have it, it gives you a false sense of security.
I have no problem with people buying hand-guns for personal use, home protection what have you. But when they have kids, and those kids end up blowing each other or themselves away (statistically something that happens much more often in gun-owner homes), they should be thrown into jail for life.
Me? I can protect myself without a gun. Even when I lived in a semi-sketchy part of DC I never needed a diaper nor a handgun. Just common sense.
My first line of defense is not going to be a government employee, I prefer more competant help.
Right! Like those boobs in the U.S. Marines. Good point, A.O. Per usual!
Personally I prefer not to be at the mercy of criminal lowlifes but that’s just me.
Where are these criminal lowlifes that you are so worried about? Are they coming to your house, or do you hang out in free-fire zones? I go unarmed to places where I’m the ONLY person without a felony conviction, and the only people who have ever messed with me were the police.
Would you shoot one of them?
I just cannot/will not understand how easy it is for someone to own something that can cause such crazy destruction. I grew up around guns (father, uncle, grandfather all policemen) and the training it takes to become proficient using the weapon takes more than practice, it takes dedication. Particularly the skill of restraint.
Going to the shooting range with my relatives was a great lesson. Everything they did was meticulous. Especially all the safely checks. I cringe when I watch many others shoot. Completely night and day from how I was taught to respect a gun. It really shouldn’t be easier for a 16 year old to get a drivers license than for a wannabe tough guy to own a 45. But the NRA gets all weepy when the obvious is pointed out to them.
How many tough guys have I seen with loaded weapons tucked into their waist bands? Either too many, or not enough, depending on perspective.
As Jaim pointed out, common sense is the first line of defense. LOL Repack, how curious the police might harrass someone hanging out with a bunch of felons. Why would you do that anyway? What’s the upside?
Note to Jr.Funk; size has nothing to do with it, it’s how you use it. A choice that for all practical purposes has been denied you in Canada.
Seriously, do as you please. It’s your decision.
LOL Repack, how curious the police might harrass someone hanging out with a bunch of felons. Why would you do that anyway? What’s the upside?
Why do you assume that the police should have the right to harrass or bother anyone? Neither activity accomplishes the goals of ‘to serve and protect’ AFAIK.
It makes sense if you think about it, people who have guns are more likely to respond agressively to a situation that threatens them. If that is the case, it really comes down to who pulls their gun first and who gets the shot off first. Seems much more likely somebody pulling a gun is going to get themselves injured, especially when compared to the guy who wets himself and hands over his wallet (hey, do it in that order, and the thief has a bunch of money that smells like urine, pretty satisfying).
That said, I’ll probably wind up buying a gun once I have the disposeable income to afford one. It would just be a shotgun, I’d keep it in my home, locked, but it would be loaded with that beanbag shot that is supposed to be so effective. That way I don’t appear to be using lethal force unnecessarily if i do have to use it!
‘Note to Jr.Funk; size has nothing to do with it, it’s how you use it. A choice that for all practical purposes has been denied you in Canada.’
We are not denied anything, we simply make it more difficult to own a gun than an automobile because we believe that neither is a ‘right.’ As guns are designed to kill and cars aren’t, we don’t see any reason on Earth to support the notion that it should be easier to buy and use a gun than it is to buy and use a car.
It’s interesting, I’ve seen this study referenced a few times now but there is never a link to the study itself. Were the cases studied cherry picked, my guess is yes. In the county I live in during the last two years we have had at least 3-4 incidents where homeowners have defended their families with firearms. Not once did the “bad guy” use the gun owners weapon against them. We have also several incidents where people were killed during home invasions. Sorry but I’ll take my chances armed.
Should this “study” be taken seriously? I mean, look at the methodology:
As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.
That’s it? That’s what they used for their findings? Granted, the fact that 677 people were shot in Philadelphia over that time period doesn’t surprise me. But I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of these people owner their guns illegally which means they’ve never actually received any kind of instruction. It also does not take into account the circumstances of the shootings.
The study is worthless.
Spin it any way you want to Funk, it won’t change reality.
They should treat handguns like dynamite.
If you have a dynamite license you are responsible for whatever that dynamite does, whether its an accident, stolen, lost, whatever, if something goes wrong its your ass.
How is a gun with a 13 round clip different from a suicide bomber with dynamite on their chest?
jay, how are you able to make any kind of guarantee regarding the legality of the gun ownership? Instruction is also not a requirement for gun ownership in pennsylvania.
As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.
That would mean 94% were *NOT* in possession. Which means you are actually 15X more likely to be the victim of a crime if you aren’t carrying.
So police shouldn’t carry guns because they’re more likely to be shot? It’s ridiculous to suggest police should be able to protect themselves with deadly force, but not me.
That would mean 94% were *NOT* in possession. Which means you are actually 15X more likely to be the victim of a crime if you aren’t carrying.
Um, no. You really think that follows logically? You have to know what percentage of the population carries guns normally and then see what percentage of assault victims were carrying, and I assume that’s what they were doing in the study, although the article doesn’t explain the methodology at all.
Most jurisdictions, as I recollect, permit neither concealed carry nor open carry of firearms, which means someone walking down the street or sitting in their vehicle is probably not holding their gun, nor reaching for one, when an armed assailant appears. It’s unclear to me how one uses a holstered weapon to defend oneself against a weapon already cocked and pointed at close range.
Fun with statistics:
Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting.
Was the person shot from behind?
Did the shooter surprise the shootee, so they couldn’t pull their weapon?
Just asking…
“The US has at least one gun for every adult,” notes Branas.
So for every person who owns ten guns, there may be 9 people (such as myself) who don’t.
“Would you like to play a game?”
Proven fact: in states where there are conceal and carry laws, there are less crimes committed with guns.
See how that works? It doesn’t matter if you can win in a shootout, if cowardly criminals are afraid to commit armed crimes, because they might end up with a high – speed lead injection.
I’m a gun owner and a hunter. I can’t undestand why we have mandatory liability insurance for cars but not for guns. We gun owners are responsible for what our guns do, and the public should be protected by mandatory gun liability insurance.
jay, how are you able to make any kind of guarantee regarding the legality of the gun ownership?
Assuming that any of these shootings occurred outside somebody’s home, it is required by law in Pennsylvania to have a license to carry a concealed weapon. Such information is part of the public record.
Instruction is also not a requirement for gun ownership in pennsylvania.
No, but it has been my experience that responsible gun owners seek as much knowledge and training as possible when it comes to using their firearms.
so jay, this study is worthless because of your assumptions and experience with gun owners (which is different from mine)?
“How is a gun with a 13 round clip different from a suicide bomber with dynamite on their chest?”
One is an inanimate object, the other a muslim with a dangerous attitude. The first is basically a tool for dealing with the second. Other than that they are exactly the same. LOL
be easier for a 16 year old to get a drivers license than for a wannabe tough guy to own a 45. But the NRA gets all weepy when the obvious is pointed out to them.
Good observation. My father always taught me that a car IS a loaded weapon. Of course I grew up in Germany and had to take a year of car lessons and be 18 till I got my licence. Having a car doesn’t mean I get to be an asshole. Unfortunately, some gun owners think that gives them that right.
Look, every gun study is a Rorshach blot upon which pro-gun and anti-gun advocates project their feelings and preconceived notions. If it supports their opinions about guns it’s a conclusive study. If it doesn’t it’s flawed methodology. just like drugs and sex and every other issue of this kind, it’s beyond rational discussion anymore.
That’s it? That’s what they used for their findings? Granted, the fact that 677 people were shot in Philadelphia over that time period doesn’t surprise me. But I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of these people owner their guns illegally which means they’ve never actually received any kind of instruction. It also does not take into account the circumstances of the shootings.
The study is worthless.
Weird, illogical and quite possibly incorrect assumptions. Fail.
Proven fact: in states where there are conceal and carry laws, there are less crimes committed with guns.
Proven fact: In countries where there are tighter gun control laws, there are fewer crimes committed with guns.
I can play that game too. Who wins?
That would mean 94% were *NOT* in possession. Which means you are actually 15X more likely to be the victim of a crime if you aren’t carrying.
Wow. Total logic fail. I feel dumber now to have read this thought.
how curious the police might harrass someone hanging out with a bunch of felons. Why would you do that anyway? What’s the upside?
I hire my employees from what might be described as the “inner city.” They are all black, and most of them have been to jail, but they are also unemployed and highly motivated.
The “upside” is that they are big, they are American citizens and they speak English.
So for having the chutzpah to hire people from a high-unemployment area and conduct my legal business there, I got pulled over for “driving while white.” They wanted to know who the f@ck I was. By the end of the complaint process a couple of months later, after I had lectured a sergeant two lieutenants and a captain on the Fourth Amendment for a total of several hours, they knew more than they wanted to about who the f@ck I am.
My complaint was not sustained because the process is rigged, which became obvious when they told me that the officer had not been punished because the courts were wrong about the Fourth Amendment! OTOH, I was happy with the opportunity to make these guys squirm in their chairs for hours, and I don’t think they’ll be eager to see me again.
Carrying a concealed weapon may make you FEEL safer, but it may not MAKE you safer. As Mike in DC points out: “It’s unclear to me how one uses a holstered weapon to defend oneself against a weapon already cocked and pointed at close range.” Think you can beat someone to the draw when they’ve already drawn down on you? Good luck with that.
“Proven fact: in states where there are conceal and carry laws, there are less crimes committed with guns.” Bullshit. First of all, “proven fact” is a redundancy. Secondly, in the majority of locales where carrying either concealed or open carry is legal they don’t have the social problems that places like Philadelphia or Detroit have (i.e. concentrated poverty). Thirdly, gun nuts, like most conservatives, tend to think it’s ok to make up their facts under the criteria that saying something over and over makes it true.
“Proven fact” – If there is no gun in the house, no child will be accidentally shot while playing with a gun.
so jay, this study is worthless because of your assumptions
No, the study is worthless because of the methodology used and where they conducted the study. Their findings are based nothing but a formula created in an Excel spreadsheet and their own assumptions.
I don’t see how anybody with any critical thinking skills at all could accept the findings in this study.
“I don’t see how anybody with any critical thinking skills at all could accept the findings in this study.”
They haven’t.
Repack,
Good help is hard to find. Good for you making the officers squirm. Do complaints end up being logged into personal records?
Proven fact: in states where there are conceal and carry laws, there are less crimes committed with guns.
citation, please.
No, the study is worthless because of the methodology used and where they conducted the study.
Since the link did not provide any in depth discussion of the methodology of the study, I don’t see how you can come to a conclusion one way or another.
And your understanding of statistics leaves something to be desired.
Even if the study were perfectly solid (which it may or may not be, I don’t know), I really don’t believe it would matter to the loudest gun rights supporters. An uptick in gun violence isn’t reason enough to take away their rights because they will be responsible, learn how to use them, keep the guns from their kids. Individualism and all that.
According the President of the NRA (at the time he said it), the U.S. is prone to more gun violence than other because of “having a more mixed ethnicity” than other nations. They’re so charming when the let the mask slip.
Since the link did not provide any in depth discussion of the methodology of the study, I don’t see how you can come to a conclusion one way or another.
Then why was it posted?
And your understanding of statistics leaves something to be desired.
That’s nice. When you want to have a discussion about probability and statistics, let me know.
That’s nice. When you want to have a discussion about probability and statistics, let me know.
Jay, if you want an in depth discussion of probability and statistics as they relate to gun use and gun control laws, you should contact Mary Rosh. She’s the most awesomest statistician evar!!!!!!
Very interesting research. Ultimately, individuals have to weigh the pros and cons of being armed or not.
Amused Observer said:
““How is a gun with a 13 round clip different from a suicide bomber with dynamite on their chest?”
One is an inanimate object, the other a muslim with a dangerous attitude.”
Anyone else besides me notice the jump AO made there? There was no mention of the ethnic/religious background of said hypothetical suicide bomber.
Anyone else besides me notice the jump AO made there?
Yes, I did, but I am weary of calling attention to AO’s bigotry.
I tried running down the article in question. It’s behind a paywall at the journal publisher’s website. I don’t know that Jay is right about the methodology, but I think his questions about it are legit.
The brief description in the news reports don’t really tell us much about the assault victims. What were they doing when they were shot? Were they sitting in front of the TV at home? Or were they engaged in aggressive confrontations?
Worth knowing, don’t you think?
Guys, there’s a link at the bottom of that article that leads you to this:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/AJPH.2008.143099v1
happy, uh, hunting.
faffer, when I click that link, I get:
This item requires a subscription to American Journal of Public Health Online.
Does this work:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/AJPH.2008.143099v1.pdf
(I’m on a university based computer)
The gist of it is this:
Yes, they tried to account for where the victims were and what they were doing, based on police reports.
Yes, they tried to account for reaction times and ability to respond to the assault, again based on police reports.
Yes, they had a control group.
No, they did not account for the training or experience of the gun owner, which they acknowledge may be a factor in their results.
Looks like you have access that I don’t.
My first line of defense is not going to be a government employee, I prefer more competant help.
Certainty in one’s own competence is an indicator of what? Anyone?
‘Spin it any way you want to Funk, it won’t change reality.’
What fucking reality is that? That the U.S. is obsessed with guns and Canada isn’t?
I can live with that reality; happy hunting gun nuts.
‘That would mean 94% were *NOT* in possession. Which means you are actually 15X more likely to be the victim of a crime if you aren’t carrying.’
So by that logic, if every citizen is packing, crime will simply disappear?
Good luck with that; you’ll be shooting each other in the head for perceived slights and making eye contact with strangers.
I suppose it never dawned on anyone that Wyatt Earp may have had a point in restricting people from carrying firearms within his city limits?
He was tired of people getting shot in his jurisdiction.
‘So police shouldn’t carry guns because they’re more likely to be shot? It’s ridiculous to suggest police should be able to protect themselves with deadly force, but not me.’
Then you must be outraged that you can’t use a surface to air missile like specially trained soldiers do?
Jesus, cops are trained to use weapons, but you still want the option available to any yahoo to go to a gun show and buy whatever lethal arms they can get their hands on, no questions asked, because 250 years ago the Constitution allowed people in far flung regions to have a flintlock.
I ask you; if everybody in the U.S. is armed, how safe would anyone feel?
Proven fact: in states where there are conceal and carry laws, there are less crimes committed with guns.
citation please
States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen’s right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports)
Proven fact: In countries where there are tighter gun control laws, there are fewer crimes committed with guns.
England has begun to arm more and more of their law enforcement personnel, because armed crimes are increasing — there’s a country with tight arms control where armed crimes are on the increase.
Man I’m glad I don’t live in AO’s paranoid little world.
MOT – “Man I’m glad I don’t live in AO’s paranoid little world.”
The problem is, to the extent that HE lives in that little paranoid world, he drags everybody else into it – people then have to defend ourselves from his ilk. Paranoia is an iron clad system where everybody gets hurt. It’s a vicious circle that starts with AO’s attitude.
there’s a country with tight arms control where armed crimes are on the increase.
Link?
Even if true, this does not contradict what I said. England still has lower rates of gun violence than the U.S. As do most industrialized nations with tighter gun laws.
The situation that frightens me with regards to an overarmed populace is where Bad Guy A is using his weapon to harm people when Good Guy B sees him and fires his own weapon. Then Good Guy C sees B firing, cannot tell who is who, and begins firing on B. Then Police Officer D comes along in response to shots being fired and Coroner E takes them all home in bags.
Mambo: perhaps there is another variable at work here: that in countries where people are not enamored of personal ownership of weapons, there will also be a criminal population less inclined to use them.
Certainly, you cannot prove a causal relationship between gun ownership by non-criminals ( a sma ll number or a large number) and gun possession by criminals while committing crimes.
The only successful “gun control” is when it is forbidden to own a weapon, and, eventually, to confiscate all weapons when discovered.
Since that will never happen in the United States, less guns will never solve anything.
perhaps there is another variable at work here
Certainly there might be. I was merely pointing out the flaw in your reasoning above. Maybe states with tighter gun control laws have more gun violence; we know that other countries with tight gun control laws have LESS gun violence. This seems to be contradictory, no?
I don’t pretend to know the underlying factors that contribute to gun violence. It’s complex, and I’m not knowledgeable enough on the topic to speak with much authority on it.
The only successful “gun control” is when it is forbidden to own a weapon, and, eventually, to confiscate all weapons when discovered.
Since that will never happen in the United States, less guns will never solve anything.
I don’t see how this makes sense at all. If there’s a single gun that exists in the U.S., gun violence will not decrease? I doubt very much that a substantial decrease in gun ownership would not decrease gun violence.
If by ’subsatantial,’ you mean “a whole lot of guns”, then I would suggest that, in the American gun-owning world, that’s not a whole lot different from “xero guns”.
um, Texas ranks higher than the national average in every category of violent crime. It also has a conceal and carry law, one of the nation’s first I believe.
“Here is something you can’t understaaaaand…how I could just kill a man..”
Jesus, this conversation is still going on?
I usually avoid answering the snarky “um”, but in your case I’ll make an exception:
Violent Crimes Drop In Texas Under “Concealed Carry” Gun Law
In 1995, Texans got the right to carry concealed weapons if they obtained permits to do so. Since then, violent crime rates in the state have fallen.
Here are some of the statistics compiled by the Texas Department of Public Safety comparing crimes in 1995 to those in 1999.
* Per 100,000 population, rates for aggravated assault fell from 429.3 to 370.
* Robberies declined from a rate of 179.8 to 146.8.
* The rape rate was down to 38.1 per 100,000 from 45.5.
* And murders fell from 9 per 100,000 to 6.1.
Since carrying a concealed weapon in the Lone Star State was legalized, overall violent crimes have declined from 644.2 per 100,000 to 561.
As a group, Texans with concealed-weapon permits are far less likely to commit crimes than other Texans, says Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis. “You don’t get a concealed carry permit because you want to commit a crime,” he points out. You get one “because you fear crimes against you.”
Burnett reports that permit-holders in 1999 were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent crimes than those without permits. They were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses. And they were 28 percent less likely to be arrested for murder.
Source: Benjamin Kepple, “Texas’ Gun-Totin’ Ways Hit by Gore, But Data Show Violent Crime Falling,” Investor’s Business Daily, October 13, 2000.
For more on Crime:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=14
“UM”, indeed!
The economy was growing from 1995 to 1999.
That will decrease crime.
Are there any more recent numbers?
The PC police are always on the case. LOL, would any of you enlightened progressive PC types like to take a stab at what percentage of suicide bombers are muslim or not muslim?
While most likely it is not 100%, the vast majority of the suicide bombers who make the headlines have one overwhelming common denominator. Perhaps somewhere on the globe there is another rabid pack of suicide bombers who don’t make the headlines, maybe one of you can help us out on that. But of the suicide bombers who do come to our attention the one overwhelming common denominator is their religion. For some peculiar reason they all appear to be adherents of the religion of peace. It is neither bigotry nor racism to take notice of that or to speak of it.
But to the main subject at hand.
SQ,
Have you a cite for Texas and violent crime? How does it rate compared to Illinois?
How about Mikey in DC, what’s the rate of violent crime in your fair city?
Chicago certainly has been getting a lot of press lately for violent crime. Chicago has what are most likely going to be proven as unconstitutionaly restrictive gun laws, DC isn’t exactly known as a gun friendly jurisdiction. What is it that makes these places so violent?
What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?
There is a prescribed method for changing the Constitution, strangely the opinions of liberal Canadians plays no part in it. I find it most entertaining to read the rantings of liberal Canucks meddling in our affairs. Perhaps there are Americans who have an interest in molding Canada into our likeness but I’m unaware of any.
“In 1995, Texans got the right to carry concealed weapons if they obtained permits to do so. Since then, violent crime rates in the state have fallen.”
The crime rate has been dropping nationally since Clinton. This doesn’t mean anything.
“What part of ’shall not be infringed’ is so hard to understand?”
What part of “a well regulated militia” is so hard to understand? A Constitutional scholar you are not.
That said, there are simple reasons for cities having more restrictive gun laws. Due to population density, something like an accidental misfire can kill people if a bullet goes through the wall of, say, an elementary school. There are perfectly valid reasons to restrict the types of guns people get and where they can take them. If you don’t believe me just ask the Supreme Court which has made this point for me.
In 1995, Texans got the right to carry concealed weapons if they obtained permits to do so. Since then, violent crime rates in the state have fallen.
It looks like there are still some of us that struggle with that whole correlation and causation distinction.
What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?
Fuck yeah, AO! I’m sick of my 2nd Amendment rights being infringed! I want some fucking grenades, and a flamethrower, and an anti-aircraft gun. Fuck that! I want a goddamn nuclear missile! That’d be suh-weeeeet, am I right?!
Don’t like it? Tough fucking shit! I have my rights!
Oh yeah… and that whole militia thing…
Jaim,
As usual your reach exceeds your grasp. “A well regulated militia” is not hard to understand at all. Since words have specific meanings let us examine what the word regulate meant at the time of the Constitution’s writing.
Regulate
c.1630, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare “to control by rule, direct” (5c.), from L. regula “rule” (see regular). Regulation is first recorded 1672, “act of regulating;” sense of “rule for management” is first attested 1715. Regulator is first recorded 1655; in Eng. history, with a capital R-, “member of a commission appointed in 1687 to manage county elections.” In U.S. history, applied to local posses that kept order (or disturbed it) in rural regions c.1767-71. Meaning “clock by which other timepieces are set” is attested from 1758.
Now let us substitute “to control by rule” for the word regulate in the Second Amendment.
A Militia controlled by rule, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The meaning of the Second Amendment is quite clear. If you had read and understood the Federalist papers this would not be such a mystery to you. The founders were quite clear about this matter. It has only been in the last several generations when progressives came up with the idea of a organic living Constitution where the meaning could evolve to suit their fancy that the meaning has come into dispute.
Your claim that Constitutional rights are dependent on population density is ridiculous. It is like the deliberate misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment where equal protection means legalized discrimination. Liberals are very selective of the portions of the Constitution they believe in upholding. What they and you don’t realize is an erosion of one liberty is an erosion of all liberties. Ben Franklin warned us about people like you.
Calm down Mambo, you’re scaring the other children. You’ll only hurt yourself, probably put your eye out, if you get your hands on anything more dangerous than a butterknife.
Frank’s statistics actually say the opposite of what he thinks. To take for example the murder rate:
And murders fell from 9 per 100,000 to 6.1
That’s a 33% fall over the last half of the decade. If we assume a straight-line decrease and extrapolate that over the whole decade that’s 66%, and I think that’s a grossly high figure because if I recall (and I can’t put my fingers on any citation right now), the decrease over the last half was by far the bulk for the whole decade.
But whatever, let’s say that 66% is the right figure for the decade.
In NYC, where there is no concealed-carry, the decline in murders for the decade was 73%
In other words, conceal-carry laws lead to more than 10% more murders.
Actually, I don’t believe the data support that conclusion, but they support that conclusion better than they do Frank’s.
Liberals are very selective of the portions of the Constitution they believe in upholding. What they and you don’t realize is an erosion of one liberty is an erosion of all liberties.
After eight years of Bush, you say this as a condemnation of liberals. Fuck you.
Ben Franklin warned us about people like you.
Franklin would absolutely abhor modern conservatives.
if you get your hands on anything more dangerous than a butterknife.
Yeah, but I have my constitutional rights. Who the fuck are you to tell me I cannot have an anti-aircraft gun, flamethrower, grenade launcher, landmines, or nuclear bombs?
Actually, I don’t believe the data support that conclusion, but they support that conclusion better than they do Frank’s.
Don’t confuse them with logic, Wilbur.
“Calm down Mambo, you’re scaring the other children. You’ll only hurt yourself, probably put your eye out, if you get your hands on anything more dangerous than a butterknife.”
I take it then he made a point you can’t refute? Because I’m not sure what this is intended to add to the debate.
Yeah, but I have my constitutional rights. Who the fuck are you to tell me I cannot have an anti-aircraft gun, flamethrower, grenade launcher, landmines, or nuclear bombs?
Yes, I’d like to see one of our local second-amendment-absolutists try to explain why it should be illegal for me to have a couple of nuclear bombs in my basement.
Who knows when they might be necessary to deter the creeping tyranny of a government that is already trying to indoctrinate children to study hard and do well in school – such children never grow up to vote republican!
“In other words, conceal-carry laws lead to more than 10% more murders.”
…a 10% slower decline, actually. But still…
Anyway, as I see it, the argument about the efficacy of gun regulation has to take a back seat to Constitutional interpretation. That the Amendment actually means is a problem for those of us (like myself) that think unlimited gun ownership is a real danger for society.
I do want to ask the proponents of the literal school of interpretation here if your interpretation means that anyone can own a nuclear weapon. Seriously, no joke. Does it? I’m all for upholding the Constitution, but if this is what you think it means, this is a problem. So AO? If your Muslim neighbor with the wild look in his eye has a nuke, are you OK with that because the rule of law protects it because its his Constitutional right? Are you? Because if he takes down a government building with it, he’s just following where that amendment leads, right? Eliminating oppression from evil tyranny and all?
Because it also occurs to me that if some drunk mullethead objects to a Chardonnay sipping milquetoast like myself eyeballin’ him as I walk to my Prius so I can get to my macrame class by blasting my head off, well, all of my Constitutional rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of, well, the rest of my life just went down the toilet in the face of his second amendment right.
I do think the literal interpretation of this provision simply doesn’t get the balance right.
But, please, AO and the others, tell me, does you towel headed sand monkey next door get the right to have nuclear arms? And we can go from there.
…a 10% slower decline which yields 10% fewer murders per capita over a decade. It’s the aggregate numbers that allow us to calculate the rate.[/pedant]
I do want to ask the proponents of the literal school of interpretation here if your interpretation means that anyone can own a nuclear weapon.
Actually under a totally literalist, original-intent reading of the constitution, the second amendment only guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear blunderbusses, flintlocks, petards, scimitars, etc.
So, AO is in favor of all gun owners having to register with their local Army Reservist office and perform duties every weekend.
Sounds good to me.
Sorry… live by the pedantry, die by the pedantry!
Anyway, Wilbur, the Constitution does say “Arms”. But AO does critique the “living organic” Constitution school of interpretation, so…
‘(Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports)’
Umm…that was 13 years ago mate.
‘Since that will never happen in the United States, less guns will never solve anything.’
Wow; since some people will never give up warfare, no point in trying to establish peace.
‘Source: Benjamin Kepple, “Texas’ Gun-Totin’ Ways Hit by Gore, But Data Show Violent Crime Falling,” Investor’s Business Daily, October 13, 2000.’
That’s not exactly current data.
Gumby,
You make a few relatively sober statements but then seem to verge into the far reaches of credibilty. I honestly don’t know the absolute answer to homegrown nukes. Are
nukes arms? Maybe so, maybe no. Let us examine the word arms and find out. From one source
Arms include: MRV (multiple re-entry vehicle), MIRV (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle), ABM (anti-ballistic missile), ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile), sword, broadsword, foil, dagger, stiletto, bayonet, cutlass, scimitar, machete, saber, ax, halberd, partisan, bill, tomahawk, hatchet, spear, pike, javelin, lance, boomerang, arrow, cross-bow, missile, club, truncheon, bludgeon, cudgel, mace, sling, longbow, catapult, musket, blunderbuss, matchlock, breechloader, harquebus, pistol, cannon, BAR (Browning automatic rifle), machine gun, submachine gun, rifle, M1, M14, M16, AK47, Uzi, Thompson submachine gun (Tommy gun), carbine, bazooka, trench mortar, hand grenade, howitzer, antitank gun, antiaircraft gun, depth bomb, gun, revolver, shotgun, switchblade, blackjack, knife, Saturday night special
From another; weapon,” 1300, from O.Fr. armes (pl.), 11c., from L. arma “weapons,” lit. “tools, implements (of war),”
While by no means conclusive, with the exception of depth charges bombs themselves seem to not be mentioned specifically. Several delivery systems for bombs are mentioned as arms but not the bombs. On the other hand they do seem to fit into the catchall “implements of war.”
It looks like perhaps our legislators have been asleep at the wheel. Since there is a specific process for amending the Constitution perhaps this should be addressed in the proper manner.
But veering away from the slightly absurd to the more realistic I think we can all agree that many of the common devices known as arms or guns are allowable despite the concerns of our more timid fellow citizens
who are disturbed by the robust embracement of Constitutional rights. So what do you think Gumby, would you sacrifice my right to arm myself with more conventional implements of war because of the theoretical problem of a wild eyed muslim possessing a nuke? Personaly if my wild eyed muslim neighbor had a nuke I would have to ask myself a question. Would a reasonably prudent man feel his life was in danger? If I thought that was the case I would exercise my right to bear arms in my own defense, I would remove my weapon from it’s case, load it, and shoot him. What would you do?
‘What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?’
How about the part that it’s not impossible to have it amended, like so many other parts of your Constitution have been?
‘I find it most entertaining to read the rantings of liberal Canucks meddling in our affairs. Perhaps there are Americans who have an interest in molding Canada into our likeness but I’m unaware of any.’
So Americans can run around invading and destroying any fucking country they please, presumably only those whose resources they covet, for now anyway, but God help you if you aren’t American and dare to comment on it? That is truly insufferable.
Since when is commentary meddling? Or do you only condone the kind of commentary that is engaged in with Predator drones and invasions, occupations and war?
And to think, those ungrateful Iraqis and Afghans actually want you guys out of their countries?
The nerve of their meddling.
Gumby,
You are again stretching the limits of credibilty. The right to bear arms does not mean that our mullet headed friend’s right to bear arms trumps your own civil liberties. The right to bear arms is not a blank license to kill, but you already know that. Rest easy, drink your chardonnay in peace while tying a knotted dreamcatcher to hang from the mirror of your batterymobile. If mullethead shoots you we will prosecute him and unless he has a good story about how his childhood was unpleasant he will be punished.
Wilbur,
Under a total literist interpretation of the Constitution you are wrong, as usual. Did the transition from the old Gutenburg printing presses to offset lithography change your First Amendment rights?
Jaim,
Again your ignorance blooms anew. It is the militia itself that is regulated, not the people.
Funk,
You’re a Canuck without any citizen rights at all down here. It’s not my fault you come from a country that was too chicken shit to take liberty for yourselves but had to wait until the mother country decided you didn’t have to be subjects any more.
“If mullethead shoots you we will prosecute him”
Well, that’s nice, but it doesn’t do me a heckuva lot of good, does it?
…and call the canucks chickenshits, but they did burn down the whitehouse once.
“So what do you think Gumby, would you sacrifice my right to arm myself with more conventional implements of war because of the theoretical problem of a wild eyed muslim possessing a nuke?”
It’s not a theoretical problem. Once you are here, you are talking about limitations. You are no longer in absolutes, no longer in literal-land, and you have to acknowledge the “living organic” nature of the Constitution. That it has to make some SENSE in the modern context.
And would I limit your right? You bet I would. Much the same way you would limit my right to free speech if I had a bullhorn and was bellowing Mao’s little red book outside your bedroom window at 3 am.
And in your example, I would call the police and have his weapon confiscated because it is not Constitutionally protected.
See? Liberals can take action, too! No reason why I have to sully my Palmolive soaked digits by blowing my neighbor’s head off. Ricardian equivalence, and all.
It looks like perhaps our legislators have been asleep at the wheel. Since there is a specific process for amending the Constitution perhaps this should be addressed in the proper manner.
But to follow your own reasoning, until such time that the constitution is amended thus, any attempt by the government to infringe on a person’s right to keep and bear nuclear arms, death rays, weaponized anthrax, nerve gas, is totally unconstitutional?
But veering away from the slightly absurd to the more realistic I think we can all agree that many of the common devices known as arms or guns are allowable
Who gets to decide what is allowable? You? Where in the constitution does it say “amused observer’s opinion shall be binding in this matter”?
Gosh Gumby,
What else can we do when mullethead blows your head off but prosecute?
“you have to acknowledge the “living organic” nature of the Constitution”
There is a specific process for changing it, remember that from your jr. high civics class?
You may be taking action by calling the cops because your wild eyed muslim neighbor has a nuke, with any luck he won’t touch it off when they knock on his door. Don’t you feel a little bit silly with the position you have staked out. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and spoke to you as if you were a rational adult for all the good it does.
Want to bet the Canucks can’t burn it down twice?
Wilbur,
You’re as silly as Gumby.
“It is the militia itself that is regulated, not the people.”
Can you explain the difference in a substantive manner? “A well regulated militia” means a standing body of soldiers, or people who can be drafted into such service as neeed.
So sure, if you own a gun you register as a member of your state militia/Army Reserve. You train every weekend too, because you’re always on call to defend the country. To do otherwise would mean the militia isn’t “well regulated.”
Wow, didn’t think you were such an anti-NRA type Amused Observer. That’s a pretty extreme position you have on the regulation of gun owners. It’s certainly a lot more extreme than my position, which is that when it comes to handguns people can undergo a background check (criminal and mental) and buy them, but if urban municipalities want to ban them that’s their Constitutional right re: states’ rights.
Wow, you’re a real pinko lib. Get a job you dirty hippie.
“What else can we do when mullethead blows your head off but prosecute?”
Well, we can prevent him from carrying around the damn thing in the first place.
“There is a specific process for changing it”
You want to amend the Constitution to say “no private nukes”? You know, you can’t amend the Constitution fast enough to deal with every contingency. It’s why it’s phrased somewhat generally and you have to be somewhat reasonable when you interpret it. You want to start the process of creating a schedule that lists the allowable “arms” that is amended through legislative committees on a quarterly basis? How do you think that’s gonna go?
“Want to bet the Canucks can’t burn it down twice?”
Why would they want to? They are reasonable people. Why have you all of a sudden turned this into a dick measuring contest with the Canadians? It’s just weird. Like they’re deterred by citizens with handguns? I don’t get the braggadocio here.
And I am sorry you don’t think I’m a rational adult. Not sure in what way I fell short. By not wanting to kill my nuclear armed neighbor and preferring to call the authorities instead? Look, I know you think the nuke thing is absurd, and it kind of is and kind of isn’t. However in even dismissing the possibility and getting pissed off about it, you are in the realm of judgement and reasonable limits. And once you say “arms” means “moderate calibre ballistic weapons” you are in the realm of interpretation and have to think about alternatives to that interpretation. That is my childish and irrational point.
And Wilbur is in no way as silly as me and I take offense.
Once again, I’m shocked that so many wing-nuts stay in America when they could move to Somalia and have all the guns and market deregulation that they so desire.
Damn, gumby, I am too as silly as you!
But face it, neither of us will ever be as silly as a.o. We might as well give up trying.
Umm…that was 13 years ago mate.
Yes, and so much has changed since then, that you are going to show me the updated information that contradicts it.
Um, 2009 – 1996 = 13 , even here in the United States.
Once again, I’m shocked that so many wing-nuts stay in America when they could move to Somalia and have all the guns and market deregulation that they so desire.
Oh yes, Somalia is a bedrock of respect for individual liberty and freedom.
It’s hard to imagine somebody could write something more stupid than this.
Jay, lefties think in black and white : To believe people should be allowed to own guns, is – in their minds — the same as being a “lover of guns”.
I don’t own a gun, but I don’t care if a law – abiding citizen owns one legally.
uh jay, in the future you might want to do a grammar check before you call someone else’s writing stupid. It’s stupider, not more stupid.
Coming in late to this, but I pose an alternate hypothesis: people more likely to be shot are more likely to carry guns.
Don’t you feel a little bit silly with the position you have staked out.
You lose, AO. Unless you want to defend my right to own major destructive weapons like nuclear bombs, ICBMs, weaponized anthrax, etc etc etc. You haven’t been able to refute that point.
You lose, decisively. How’s it feel?
I don’t own a gun, but I don’t care if a law – abiding citizen owns one legally.
Which is kind of the point, isn’t it? I haven’t seen anyone here advocating that guns be banned. I have seen cogent, reasoned arguments that a “well-regulated militia” should be interpreted to mean that guns can be licensed and regulated.
I actually like Jaim’s suggestion that “all gun owners (should have) to register with their local Army Reservist office and perform duties every weekend.” I think the Founding Fathers would approve, don’t you?
Jaim – “Once again, I’m shocked that so many wing-nuts stay in America when they could move to Somalia and have all the guns and market deregulation that they so desire.”
Jay – “Oh yes, Somalia is a bedrock of respect for individual liberty and freedom. ”
Hey Jay, what better way to get individual liberty and freedom? Right? Show them how it’s done. Knock yourself out.
‘You’re a Canuck without any citizen rights at all down here. It’s not my fault you come from a country that was too chicken shit to take liberty for yourselves but had to wait until the mother country decided you didn’t have to be subjects any more.’
What fucking universe did that happen in?
While Bush had your military chasing the wetdream of Iraq, Nato forces, primarily Canadian, were doing the fighting and dying in Afghanistan.
Your incessant desire to rewrite history is hardly convincing of anything but your utter lack of credibility.
I can say whatever the fuck I want, just like you, I simply don’t lose my mind when people disagree with me. You? Not so much.
I think the Founding Fathers would approve, don’t you?
With forced military service? They didn’t even want soldiers in their homes…
And why should there be any conditions attached to gun ownership, other than attempting to determine if the potential owner may harm himself or others?
‘Yes, and so much has changed since then, that you are going to show me the updated information that contradicts it.’
How would you even know when you rely on data from over a decade ago.
Gumby,
“However in even dismissing the possibility and getting pissed off about it, you are in the realm of judgement and reasonable limits”
In no way am I pissed off at you but as you mention, your position regarding nukes is a bit absurd.
“You want to amend the Constitution to say “no private nukes”? You know, you can’t amend the Constitution fast enough to deal with every contingency. It’s why it’s phrased somewhat generally and you have to be somewhat reasonable when you interpret it. You want to start the process of creating a schedule that lists the allowable “arms” that is amended through legislative committees on a quarterly basis? How do you think that’s gonna go? ”
Personally I’m not that worked up over the need to amend the Constitution to keep nukes out of the hands of my wildeyed musim neighbors. I think it more a theoretical rather than actual problem.
It is rather difficult to amend for a reason, but that is the process to change it as you well know.
To turn it’s meaning on it’s head by redefining the language with which it is written, that I do have a problem with. Witness the efforts of the left to turn the 14th Amendment 180 degrees. To define equal protection as legalized discrimination in an effort to level the playing field for crimes against people long dead and reward “victims who were not alive at the time of the violation is a perfect example.
Regarding pissing contests with Canucks, I do find it annoying to be lectured by our cousins to the north about matters of ours. I do get a certain guilty pleasure of reminding our northern neighbors that, although of common stock, only we had the balls to seize our freedom and liberty from the mother country. We are made of sterner stuff than our milder northern relations. There is a difference between citizens and subjects. When liberal hectoring from the north becomes too annoying it doesn’t hurt to remind them that from a personal freedom and liberty standpoint they are the runt of the litter.
Jaim,
Read the 14th Amendment, perhaps someone will help you with the multisyllable words that define the limits of the several state’s ability to regulate the rights of individuals. State’s rights are real, the result of a voluntary federation of individual sovergnties, that does not mean they may run roughshod over an individual. The states enjoy far more rights than the feds but are not superior to the individual citizen. It is a shame your parents wasted so much money on your education. While they certainly have the right to spend it as they see fit it would have contributed much more to the common good if the money had been more wisely invested in one with a greater ability to profit from the education that was paid for. At least our children’s educations are not suffering from your limitations at the present time. That you are once again shocked at the lack of enthusiasim for emigration to Somalia speaks volumes about both your grasp of fellow Americans proclivities and your own oratorical abilties.
uh jay, in the future you might want to do a grammar check before you call someone else’s writing stupid. It’s stupider, not more stupid.
Actually brif, either one is right, but “more stupid” actually sounds better. If I was describing something of beauty, what would sound better, “This is more beautiful than anything I have seen” or “This is beautifuler than anything I have seen”? In addition, Jaim’s writing isn’t stupid, it’s what he wrote that was stupid.
As actual one-time Vice President of the United States (really) Dan Quayle said in his first public statement in the wake of Columbine, while the bodies were still warm:
I bet he’s still keeping it classy.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/exclusive-gun-show-dealers-caught-vi
“Regarding pissing contests with Canucks, I do find it annoying to be lectured by our cousins to the north about matters of ours.”
Well, we are the elephant they can’t help but be in bed with, and no doubt our views on things do have an impact on how their society runs. They do things differently, and in a lot of ways (but certainly not all) better. It’s useful to see those views. Thinking that “we’re American, we’re the best, no one can tell us anything” is limiting and stupid.
And the derogatory language you use is disgraceful and shows the massive chip you have on your shoulder. That 225 years ago some people opted for one form of government over another does not make their descendants “runts” or “chickenshits”. Only someone who got relentlessly picked on in a schoolyard thinks or talks like this. It’s childish and I’m embarrassed for you.
This is why some 30 percent of all illegal gun traffic in the United States emanates from gun shows.
This is the first time I have ever seen that statistic. I’d really like to see the numbers behind that figure, especially when one considers according to FBI statistics that less than 2% of crimes are committed with guns purchased at gun shows.
especially when one considers according to FBI statistics that less than 2% of crimes are committed with guns purchased at gun shows.
Perhaps I didn’t make it clear that this was from a gun show (would bave been readily obvious to anyone who clicked the link, of course):
So maybe we should do something about this? Or should we follow the sage advice of Former Vice President For Real Quayle?
No Jay, more stupid is not correct. Plugging your original statement into spellchecker.net brings up the following error message.
Incorrect comparative modifier form.
Perhaps I didn’t make it clear that this was from a gun show (would bave been readily obvious to anyone who clicked the link, of course):
Ummm..yeah I saw it. I followed the link too which is how I was able to see that 30% figure.
As for “doing something about it” go ahead. Liberals live in this fantasy world where crooks from all over the country are descending upon gun shows en masse to buy weapons. Forcing private sellers to obtain background checks at a gun show will not put a dent in crime.
Forcing private sellers to obtain background checks at a gun show will not put a dent in crime.
So nothing should be done about it. Got it.
Personally I’m not that worked up over the need to amend the Constitution to keep nukes out of the hands of my wildeyed musim neighbors. I think it more a theoretical rather than actual problem.
The reason it is only a theoretical problem, sunshine, is that there is over 100 years of jurisprudence to the effect that the right enshrined in the second amendment is far from absolute. The citizen’s right to keep and bear arms does not extend to the point where he and his arms become an imminent danger to his fellow citizens. This applies to nukes as well as rocket launchers and assault rifles. It allows weapons to be totally banned in certain circumstances, and regulations to be placed on certain weapons in all circumstances. The permissible level of banning/regulation is not something that is fixed but shifts with time, with technology, with community standards, and with the eternal dance between legislatures and courts in which he application of our founding documents is continually reassessed.
So when you talk smack like “which part of ’shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand”, as if it is a black and white question, you’re just being silly.
No Jay, more stupid is not correct.
Good for you Brif. I suggest that instead of using “spellchecker.net” you look at something like the ‘The Heath Handbook.’ It has a list of comparative and superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs. When using an adjective with one syllable such as “short” you would use the term “shorter” or “shortest.” It is more proper (not properer) to add “most” or “more” to adjectives with two syllables though the other usage is not incorrect.
Thus, “more alert” as opposed to “alerter.” A “more tranquil” setting instead of a “tranquiler” setting, “more handsome” instead of “handsomer.”
The bottom line is either usage is acceptable.
Are we through now with the grammar lessons?
The citizen’s right to keep and bear arms does not extend to the point where he and his arms become an imminent danger to his fellow citizens.
Yeah, well, says you. Jesus disagrees. And nobody fucks with The Jesus!
Sorry Jay, but once again you are wrong and overruled by the dictionary. The general syllable rule you reference is correct in most cases, however there are exceptions for words such as lousy or stupid. The following rule comes from the University of Calgary English Department website.
The best way to be certain whether the comparative and superlative forms of a particular adjective or adverb are formed by the -er/-est endings or by the words more/most is to consult a college dictionary. If there are no comparative and superlative forms listed with the endings, then that word takes more/most.
So nothing should be done about it. Got it.
Do you have that much trouble with comprehension. Where exactly did I say nothing should be done about it? If a transaction like this takes place and the person in question would not otherwise pass a background check, then he committed a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If the person selling the gun knows the person he is selling to is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a weapon, then he too is guilty of a federal felony. So if you want to “do something about it”, go ahead and bust these people.
The idiotic “solution” offered up by Democrats is to close the so called “gun show loophole” (which its not, because a “loophole” allows somebody to do something legally, that would otherwise be illegal) which would require background checks for any and all purchases at a gun show. Great. What impact does that have on crime? Not a lot really.
Ok brif.
Although I don’t think you could be any vapider. I’m lucider than you are when it comes to this issue. I’ve presented a solider case than you, but you think your point is valider.
(which its not, because a “loophole” allows somebody to do something legally, that would otherwise be illegal)
The point is that if you wouldn’t pass a background check, your next best option is to buy a gun a a gun show, where you wouldn’t be submitted to one.
That’s a loophole, Jay.
Many states require those who sell alcohol to check IDs of their customers before they can make the sale.
Would you ever suggest that these laws apply only to liquor stores and not to bars?
If you did, where do you think all the 18-year-olds would go to get hammered? Why? Because you’d given them a huge loophole.
It’s neat when you can just make up definitions of words, Jay, but a loophole is not defined as “a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loophole
It’s about EVADING a rule or law. Which is what the gin show loophole allows.
It’s
Rather “a loophole IS defined”
Thank you for proving my point jay. I’ll repeat, the best way to be certain whether the comparative and superlative forms of a particular adjective or adverb are formed by the -er/-est endings or by the words more/most is to consult a college dictionary. If there are no comparative and superlative forms listed with the endings, then that word takes more/most.
You don’t use dictionaries, do you?
fafaroo, good luck to you. i’ve had this debate with jay in the past. He’s smarter than your dictionary. words mean whatever jay says they mean. Apparently grammar is whatever he thinks it should be too.
Fafaroo, what do I have to do to make you understand this? Let me give you some background here and perhaps maybe, you’ll understand it.
Scenario 1: Joe Schmoe wants to purchase a gun. He knows that because of a drug conviction 20 years earlier, he is ineligible to purchase a gun at federal licensed firearms dealer. So he goes to a gun show. Because a private seller isn’t required by law to conduct a background check, Joe is able to purchase a 9mm Beretta.
Question: Did a legal transaction take place?
Answer: No. Because Joe Schmoe just took possession of a gun and is ineligible to do because of his prior drug conviction, he just committed a federal felony and could be sent to prison for 10 years.
Scenario 2: Jane Schmoe runs a successful small business in her town. The city that her business is located in, decides to levy a 10% tax on businesses whose headquarters are in that town. Jane Schmoe’s lawyers advise her that legally, she can set up her “headquarters” in the next town over that won’t charge the 10% tax but still keep operating within her home town. She does that and avoids having to pay the tax.
Question: Is she legally avoiding the 10% tax.
Answer: Yes. She is taking advantage of a “loophole” in the law that allows her to set up a “headquarters” in another town that is not subject to the same tax.
Do you understand how it works now?
Many states require those who sell alcohol to check IDs of their customers before they can make the sale.
Would you ever suggest that these laws apply only to liquor stores and not to bars?
Nice try but your example does not hold up. Federal licensed firearm dealers are required to do background checks at their stores and at gun shows. And while establishments such as bars and liquor stores are required to check ID, some guy who has a few cases in his fridge isn’t required to ask for identification if somebody offers to buy a couple of six packs.
Brif, go and tell this guy he’s wrong then.
http://www.allexperts.com/ep/680-14843/General-Writing-Grammar/Ted-Nesbitt.htm
false premise jay. For scenario 1, the correct question should be: Would a transaction take place at all if the private seller were required to conduct a background check?
Fafaroo, what do I have to do to make you understand this?
Actually use the correct definition of loophole?
No it is not a false premise Brif because it has nothing to do with whether or not a transaction takes place, but whether or not a transaction LEGALLY takes place because that’s what a loophole in the law is.
This is the definition of a loophole as it applies to the law:
A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law without directly violating the law.
AO – “I do find it annoying to be lectured by our cousins to the north about matters of ours.”
Glad you’re annoyed. We will keep talking.
And while establishments such as bars and liquor stores are required to check ID, some guy who has a few cases in his fridge isn’t required to ask for identification if somebody offers to buy a couple of six packs.
Not true. Check the law in Texas:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090608062606AANpZzg
The only person who can legally provide alcohol to a minor in Texas is that persons legal guardian and only if the guardian is visibly present when the minor consumes the alcohol.
You know why that is, Jay? Because the state didn’t want to give teenagers a loophole.
Now, I don’t now what the law is in your state Jay, but why don’t you find out by selling alcohol to your neighbors kids. See how long it takes before the cops show up your door.
This is the definition of a loophole as it applies to the law:
Oh Jesus, Jay. You’d rather play semantics than accept the fact that someone who can’t legally purchase a gun and still get a gun without anyone knowing they shouldn’t have it.
If the purpose of the law is to keep guns out of the hands of those who can’t have them, then the purpose of the law is being undermined by allowing private sellers to sell guns to anyone who wants one.
It’s a fucking loophole.
Where in that statute does it say that it is required to ask for identification? You’re confusing two separate issues Fafaroo. I am specifically talking about the act of asking for identification. If I sold or gave alcohol to somebody that was 21 without asking for ID, what law have I broken?
You’d rather play semantics than accept the fact that someone who can’t legally purchase a gun and still get a gun without anyone knowing they shouldn’t have it.
It’s not semantics Fafaroo when the intent of using the term “loophole” is to make it appear as though A PERFECTLY LEGAL TRANSACTION is taking place. That is the bottom line. The politicians and people who refer to it as a “loophole” want people to think that there are people out there LEGALLY acquiring firearms at gun shows despite having a criminal record or being a terrorist. That’s not semantics. It’s BULLSHIT.
Why is it so frigging difficult for you to comprehend this? If you are not legally allowed to purchase a weapon and happen to work your way around the background check, YOU HAVE STILL BROKEN THE LAW whether you buy the gun at a gun show, garage sale, crack house, or gumball machine.
Good grief.
If I sold or gave alcohol to somebody that was 21 without asking for ID, what law have I broken?
None. And you’re right. I misread what you wrote.
But if you sold beer to a minor, whether or not you carded that person, or whether or not you knew or cared if they were a minor, would have committed a crime by selling that minor alcohol. In other words, it doesn’t matter if you knew or did know that the person was a minor. The simple fact of selling alcohol to a minor is against the law, regardless of your knowledge of the kids age.
In your post above you wrote:
If the person selling the gun knows the person he is selling to is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a weapon, then he too is guilty of a federal felony.
Forgive my ignorance, but are you suggesting that if a private seller at a gun show does not know anything about the person he’s selling too, they are not guilty of a crime?
It’s not semantics Fafaroo when the intent of using the term “loophole” is to make it appear as though A PERFECTLY LEGAL TRANSACTION is taking place.
Jay, who said that’s what’s being implied?
I’ve always taken it to mean that a person who is not legally allowed to buy a gun and can still buy one at anytime at a gun show.
The intent of using the term loophole is to emphasize exactly that point: People who are not legally allowed to buy guns, still can from private sellers who, if I understand you correctly, actually benefit from NOT knowing anything about who they are selling guns to.
The politicians and people who refer to it as a “loophole” want people to think that there are people out there LEGALLY acquiring firearms at gun shows despite having a criminal record or being a terrorist.
Let me fix this for you:
The politicians and people who refer to it as a “loophole” want people to think that there are people out there
LEGALLYacquiring firearms at gun shows despite having a criminal record or being a terrorist.If you are not legally allowed to purchase a weapon and happen to work your way around the background check, YOU HAVE STILL BROKEN THE LAW whether you buy the gun at a gun show, garage sale, crack house, or gumball machine.
I love this part “worked your way around a background check.”
In others do you mean, attend a gun show and buy a gun?
Fafaroo a simple question.
Assuming you don’t have a criminal record, if you were to attend a gun show and purchased a firearm from a private seller, and no background checks were performed, were any laws broken, yes or no?
Yes. Or. No.
Assuming you don’t have a criminal record, if you were to attend a gun show and purchased a firearm from a private seller, and no background checks were performed, were any laws broken, yes or no?
I believe the question before us now Jay is whether the seller of the gun could be held legally accountable for unknowingly selling a gun to a felon at a gun show.
Yes or no.
Assuming you don’t have a criminal record,…
This is interesting phrasing, Jay. Because anyone that sold me a gun with a background check at a gun show, right now, could only assume that was legally able to purchase that gun. They’d have no way of knowing otherwise and, if your above comment reflects the current state of affairs a gun seller at a gun actually has an incentive NOT to ask any questions of the person their selling a gun to.
with = without
Yes or no? It’s a simple question. Please just answer it and don’t dance around.
You don’t have a criminal record. You purchase a firearm from a private dealer at a gun show. No background check was performed.
Were any laws broken?
YES OR NO?
Yes or no? It’s a simple question. Please just answer it and don’t dance around.
Self righteous wingnut blog commenters: so awesome.
Were any laws broken?
Like I said in the other thread. No. So what’s your point?
Now, Jay, maybe you’d like to answer my question now?
Canadian Bacon:
“AO – “I do find it annoying to be lectured by our cousins to the north about matters of ours.”
Glad you’re annoyed. We will keep talking.”
Good. I hope you do.
I’ve been chewing over AO’s idiocy through the day, and wondering why it annoys me as much as it does.
It occurs to me that most democracies have individual rights rights enshrined in their constitutions. (As does runtish and chickenshit Canada, AO, for the record.) We are no longer unique in that regard, nor have we been for a long, long time. 235 years ago we (and I say “we” in the most inclusive sense, as my ancestors came here about a hundred years ago — how about you AO, was your Mom a member of the DAR, or is your provenance a tad more recent like most everyone else?) were at the forefront of a watershed in political evolution that most developed nations followed. However, these innovations of constitutionally enshrined individual liberties are no longer exclusive to us. Resting on 235 year old laurels, and thinking we are still exceptional because of the revolution is hubris and a profound error that will lead to complacency and stagnation. We can continue to innovate, to learn, to take what is best from the experience of others, or we can die, wallowing in our own myopia. (Insert better metaphor, sorry).
So when a braying ass like AO condemns a country like Canada for remaining loyal to the Queen 235 years ago, and beats his breast on the accomplishments of his ancestors (if, indeed, he can even claim ancestry that far back — I, for one, cannot) I think this is someone who is living in the past and who basks in the weakest of reflected glories. Worse, though he wants to claim ownership of the triumph of the founding fathers, he does nothing to live by their spirit. The founding fathers were not conservative in nature. They were looking forward, not back. They expected the enshrining of personal liberties to provide for a more egalitarian, freer and more prosperous nation. Implemented well, they were right. Implemented poorly, we get pointless handgun deaths and charity health clinics in horse stalls and a government that tortures.
Every other developed nation has done things like regulate gun use (no one bans them outright!) or provide health care for its citizens better than us. The outcomes are better, they are more prosperous, economic mobility is better, metrics of quality of life are better. To say we were first to the revolution (and the french may quibble about even that) is not a response to what we should do NOW to make a freer and more prosperous society living up to the ideals of our nation’s founders. It’s not enough to say you won the Superbowl 40 years ago. I want to know what we are going to do to win again in my lifetime.