Connecticut (et al)

[Seth]

Then gun owners are purposely skewing the data, making it impossible to determine if guns actually are a problem or not. This rather undermines your reliance on your "statistics".

Now why would they do that? It couldn't be because they care more about keeping their guns at all costs than they do about finding the truth - if that truth might mean that guns do harm society?

No, couldn't be that.

No, it couldn't be that. In fact, it's a matter of personal privacy and preservation of the Republic in the face of a long-standing attempt to ban and seize our firearms. As I elucidated in the New Jersey example of using gun registration lists which were never to be used for confiscations, but were only a few years later, gun owners no longer trust government to keep its word, and therefore we refuse to register our firearms knowing full well that it's the first step in the gun banner's agenda to confiscate arms.

So long as the government has no idea where the guns are or who has them, it's impotent to institute despotic tyranny because those arms will come out and be used to put down a tyrant should the need arise.

The very first thing that any tyrant does is to disarm the citizenry for precisely that reason.

That's why any sane gun owner would lie to a pollster about owning a gun. What they don't know can't hurt us.

[Seth]

Seth supplies no evidence, but his own form of religious faith. Seth is a member in good standing of the Church of the Gun. It is an element of religious faith that more guns are better, and any data which indicates anything else must be fallaceous by definition. Forget data. Faith is all.

Note that Seth still claims that the old west was peaceful, despite two of us supplying data to the contrary. But that is the standard religious approach. If the data does not support the faith, discard the data.

On comments about crime rates state by state.
I have said before, several times, that it makes no difference what local state laws are. The thing is that tools for committing murder are readily available. For example : I was told that California has much tighter gun rules than Nevada, and there are a number of types of very nasty weapons that you cannot legally buy in California. No big deal. Just go to Nevada and buy all the nastiest weapons you want, and take them back to California in the trunk of your car. So we see drug dealers in California carrying hand guns of the most lethal sort, which are actually illegal in that state.

Until there are federal bans on certain weapons, those weapons will be found everywhere, and the murder rate will be unaffected by local ordinances.

Well, that's because criminals don't obey laws, federal or local. Ask Mexico, which is plagued with guns illegally imported from the former Soviet bloc nations (real "assault weapons" and RPGs and suchlike)

[aspire1670]

Seth supplies no evidence, but his own form of religious faith. Seth is a member in good standing of the Church of the Gun. It is an element of religious faith that more guns are better, and any data which indicates anything else must be fallaceous by definition. Forget data. Faith is all.

Note that Seth still claims that the old west was peaceful, despite two of us supplying data to the contrary. But that is the standard religious approach. If the data does not support the faith, discard the data.

On comments about crime rates state by state.
I have said before, several times, that it makes no difference what local state laws are. The thing is that tools for committing murder are readily available. For example : I was told that California has much tighter gun rules than Nevada, and there are a number of types of very nasty weapons that you cannot legally buy in California. No big deal. Just go to Nevada and buy all the nastiest weapons you want, and take them back to California in the trunk of your car. So we see drug dealers in California carrying hand guns of the most lethal sort, which are actually illegal in that state.

Until there are federal bans on certain weapons, those weapons will be found everywhere, and the murder rate will be unaffected by local ordinances.

Well, that's because criminals don't obey laws, federal or local. Ask Mexico, which is plagued with guns illegally imported from the USA

FIFY

[Blind groper]

No, it couldn't be that. In fact, it's a matter of personal privacy and preservation of the Republic in the face of a long-standing attempt to ban and seize our firearms.

The problem is that gun enthusiasts define any attempt to reduce the number of gun deaths as tyranny. So the government cannot do its job, protecting the people, without being accused of being a tyrant. The gun enthusiasts cannot see that the real problem is their attitude. it is not the government being a tyrant, since stopping homicides is part of the government's job.

Gun enthusiasts are blind to anything other than being able to play with lethal toys, and to be able to kill people within the law, even when such killing is evil.

We had a case here in NZ a few years ago, written up in local newspapers, when a diabetic, who had his sugar/insulin levels out of kilter, got horribly confused. This guy was walking home and went to the wrong house. However, out of his total confusion, thought it was his own house. In fact, was utterly convinced it was his own home. When his key did not fit, he broke a window to get in, thinking he would get it repaired the next day. The real owners were an elderly couple, and were terrified, but called the police. The police got it sorted out.

Now, if that had been Seth, he would have shot the poor diabetic dead without bothering to check if he was a genuine threat. Seth, in a previous thread, said anyone in his home without permission would be treated that way. Seth used the words : "twice in the chest and once in the head."

If that had happened, Seth would be a murderer, and in my country he would very rightly be locked up for 20 years.

Gun enthusiasts like Seth consider any loss to that privilege of legally murdering someone as tyranny.

[Seth]

Seth supplies no evidence, but his own form of religious faith. Seth is a member in good standing of the Church of the Gun. It is an element of religious faith that more guns are better, and any data which indicates anything else must be fallaceous by definition. Forget data. Faith is all.

Note that Seth still claims that the old west was peaceful, despite two of us supplying data to the contrary. But that is the standard religious approach. If the data does not support the faith, discard the data.

On comments about crime rates state by state.
I have said before, several times, that it makes no difference what local state laws are. The thing is that tools for committing murder are readily available. For example : I was told that California has much tighter gun rules than Nevada, and there are a number of types of very nasty weapons that you cannot legally buy in California. No big deal. Just go to Nevada and buy all the nastiest weapons you want, and take them back to California in the trunk of your car. So we see drug dealers in California carrying hand guns of the most lethal sort, which are actually illegal in that state.

Until there are federal bans on certain weapons, those weapons will be found everywhere, and the murder rate will be unaffected by local ordinances.

Well, that's because criminals don't obey laws, federal or local. Ask Mexico, which is plagued with guns illegally imported from the USA

FIFY

...by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tax, Firearms and Explosives...

And most of the illegal arms in Mexico are actual military arms (machine guns, grenades, etc.) smuggled in from places like Cuba and Russia and China. The number of NFA legal firearms smuggled into Mexico from the US is zero.

Then again, it's not our problem that Mexico cannot control it's borders and cannot (actually doesn't want to stop) firearms smuggling...by Mexicans...from the United States. It's their problem. All they have to do is send the military to the border and seal it to prevent any smuggling...oh, wait, that would cut off the billions of dollars of narcomoney and "remittances" from illegal aliens that flow into Mexico's economy as a result of their REFUSAL to substantially cooperate with border-closing efforts.

And once again the problem in Mexico is not too many guns, it's not enough guns in the hands of the citizenry. Mexican's can't have most firearms, so they are unarmed victims of narcoterrorism. We need to dump tens of thousands of pallets of AK-47s and ammunition on Mexico so that the peons can arm themselves and take on the corrupt government AND the narcoterrorists.

[Blind groper]

Seth

What is the relevance of your comments on Mexico, to the overall trend of this thread?

[Seth]

No, it couldn't be that. In fact, it's a matter of personal privacy and preservation of the Republic in the face of a long-standing attempt to ban and seize our firearms.

The problem is that gun enthusiasts define any attempt to reduce the number of gun deaths as tyranny.

Liar. Gun enthusiasts are the principle motivators of gun safety education. What gun enthusiasts obstruct are attempts to register, ban and confiscate firearms in violation of the 2nd Amendment which are disguised (thinly) as "common sense gun control" efforts by your ilk, who are also inveterate and pathological liars.

We're all for reducing the number of gun deaths in the US, and worldwide. We just want to do it the only effective way that actually works and still protects our rights and liberties: permitting law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons for self defense, which has a demonstrable positive effect on suppressing crime and protecting some two million people every year from criminal predation.

So the government cannot do its job, protecting the people, without being accused of being a tyrant.

Protecting the people by infringing on their fundamental natural constitutionally protected rights is not government's job, and any attempt to do so is ipso facto and dejure tyranny.

The gun enthusiasts cannot see that the real problem is their attitude. it is not the government being a tyrant, since stopping homicides is part of the government's job.

Sorry, that's not the government's job. The Supreme Court has said so quite explicitly a couple of times. No politician, government employee or police officer has ANY duty to protect ANY person against ANY particular crime...that's the duty of the individual.

Gun enthusiasts are blind to anything other than being able to play with lethal toys, and to be able to kill people within the law, even when such killing is evil.

Killing someone within the law is by definition not "evil." It may be unfortunate for the criminal, but it's his own actions that leads to his death, and the rights of the victim outweigh his rights.

We had a case here in NZ a few years ago, written up in local newspapers, when a diabetic, who had his sugar/insulin levels out of kilter, got horribly confused. This guy was walking home and went to the wrong house. However, out of his total confusion, thought it was his own house. In fact, was utterly convinced it was his own home. When his key did not fit, he broke a window to get in, thinking he would get it repaired the next day. The real owners were an elderly couple, and were terrified, but called the police. The police got it sorted out.

Now, if that had been Seth, he would have shot the poor diabetic dead without bothering to check if he was a genuine threat. Seth, in a previous thread, said anyone in his home without permission would be treated that way. Seth used the words : "twice in the chest and once in the head."
If that had happened, Seth would be a murderer, and in my country he would very rightly be locked up for 20 years.

Gun enthusiasts like Seth consider any loss to that privilege of legally murdering someone as tyranny.

Liar. First, if it's legal, it's not murder, by definition. It might be homicide, but a justifiable homicide. Not "murder."

And yes, I object to any loss of my right to use lethal force to defend myself, my family and my home against a violent criminal invader. It is lawful to do so, and I support the law. Taking away that right would endanger me inappropriately, which is why the state legislature passed the law in the first place. The homeowner owes nothing to the violent criminal intruder, and it's up to EVERYONE to keep their wits about them and stay out of other people's homes.

The law in Colorado and many other states is quite specific. A man's home is his castle, and there is no acceptable excuse for breaking and entering someone else's home, a place where they are entitled to absolute safety. Even so, such laws do not allow a homeowner to simply kill an intruder, there are always conditions attached to such laws. In Colorado, the intruder must make an "uninvited entry," AND he must do so with the intent to commit some crime OTHER THAN the uninvited entry inside the home, AND the homeowner must believe that the intruder is going to use ANY degree of physical force against ANY occupant of the dwelling.

So, contrary to your bullshit legally-ignorant claims and outright lies (I've always carefully qualified any statement about exercising the Castle Doctrine law in my home) the situation is not as you portray it. However, it is accurate to say that if the legal standard is met for a Castle Doctrine shooting, I will indeed put two in the chest and one in the head...if I believe it's necessary to do so.

A person who is disoriented by a medical emergency is not likely to present the requisite behavior that would justify a shooting, although he might if he got belligerent enough. Likewise a drunk person would probably not meet the requisite criteria, but could potentially do so.

In either case, the burden is on the intruder to a) not intrude in the first place (drunkenness not being an excuse of any kind); b) not try to commit another crime inside the house; and c) not threaten any occupant with the use of force.

If a drunk, or a diabetic, meets the three criteria, and ends up shot dead, it's their own fault because it's not the responsibility of the homeowner to inquire as to the health, sobriety or intentions of an intruder in his home, he is permitted to react as the circumstances present themselves and make his judgments about the use of force accordingly.

The lesson is, don't get drunk and break into the wrong house, you might get shot. And take your insulin.

[Seth]

Seth

What is the relevance of your comments on Mexico, to the overall trend of this thread?

It's a relevant example of not enough guns in the right hands causing death, destruction and misery. And the sort of thing going on in Mexico right now is one of the reasons the 2nd Amendment exists and what it's intended to protect against.

You'll note that except for some cross-border incidents in border towns, most of the violence stays in Mexico. That's because once you get into populated areas in the US, it's not nearly as easy to drive around perpetrating mass killings of innocent citizens because a good many of them go about armed and will shoot back.

Narcoterrorists, like criminals and hoplophobes, are cowards and so they generally limit their exposure to armed victims as much as possible.

Mexico has a case of "less guns, more crime." And by "less guns" I mean firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens that they use to lawfully protect themselves and their communities.

[Jason]

Simple, choose Australia. Both are relatively young countries, initially settled from Britain, with a similar language, no current civil war, similar levels of technological development, democratic style of government etc.

Very different number of guns (specifically pistols and assault rifles, though), and very different laws concerning them.

Very different murder rates, too...

Of course, I know the response, and it slides into Tyrannical's territory: "It's all the fault of our huge number of young gang members of a certain colour, boo hoo"

OK, let's pick Australia. Now show me how the two societies compare - no superficialities like 'similar language' and 'settled by the British'.

[Jason]

Well, that's because criminals don't obey laws, federal or local. Ask Mexico, which is plagued with guns illegally imported from the former Soviet bloc nations (real "assault weapons" and RPGs and suchlike)

I assume by "real assault weapons" you actually mean assault rifles? The fully automatic/burst fire kind? Two different things.

[Blind groper]

We just want to do it the only effective way that actually works and still protects our rights and liberties: permitting law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons for self defense, which has a demonstrable positive effect on suppressing crime and protecting some two million people every year from criminal predation.

How many times will you keep quoting the dubious findings of a discredited, and probably dishonest ex academic? John Lott has lost the respect of his fellow academics, and some of them think his "2 million per year" result came from figures he simply invented. I have shown you, Seth, reports from Yale and Harvard University in which both the concealed carry claim and the 2 million a year claim are utterly discredited. When you make those claims over and over again, despite the new evidence, you are being intellectually dishonest.

Sorry, that's not the government's job. The Supreme Court has said so quite explicitly a couple of times. No politician, government employee or police officer has ANY duty to protect ANY person against ANY particular crime...that's the duty of the individual.

Much hilarity here. Isn't it the NYPD who has the motto "To Serve and Protect"? However, I think if you asked any non corrupt police officer anywhere in the world whether the police had a duty to protect individual citizens, you would get a resounding Yesin reply.

Killings within the law.

Yes, these can be evil. As I quoted before "The law is an ass!" Some laws are inhumane and evil, and any law that permits one person to shoot and kill another without ascertaining whether a real threat exists is evil. The act of so killing is also evil. Just because one person imagines another is a threat is no excuse to carry out a homicide.

In Colorado, the intruder must make an "uninvited entry," AND he must do so with the intent to commit some crime OTHER THAN the uninvited entry inside the home, AND the homeowner must believe that the intruder is going to use ANY degree of physical force against ANY occupant of the dwelling.

Yes, and any homeowner who shoots dead an intruder will make whatever claims he feels he needs to make to justify the killing. Many of those claims will be lies. Though we can never know the exact numbers, you can guarantee that a lot of killings that are called self defense were judged that way based on lies.

I spoke a couple years back with an American visiting NZ. He was a big time gun nutter. Not just an enthusiast. This guy was a nutter. He told me that if anyone entered his house uninvited, he would shoot the intruder dead, no questions asked. And then he would fire a bullet through the ceiling. He would tell the police the ceiling shot was a warning shot, fired at first. After which, his lie would be that the intruder kept advancing till he was forced to shoot him.

I suspect this tactic is well known among gun enthusiasts, and probably put into practice. Such a killing might be considered legal, but would be totally evil.

[Svartalf]

"Assault weapon" is a stupid tag slapped on something to make the bleeding hearts feel good about restricting people's constitutional rights... it has nothing to do with assault rifles or other full auto capable weapons, or with reducing crime.

[Wumbologist]

He told me that if anyone entered his house uninvited, he would shoot the intruder dead, no questions asked.

I would shoot the intruder dead, one question asked. Is that still ok?

Does it help if the question is "Do ya feel lucky, punk?"?

[Blind groper]

Wumbo

If you did that in my country, which unlike the USA, is civilised in terms of guns, you would be arraigned for murder, and end up doing time. A long time.

[Jason]

"Assault weapon" is a stupid tag slapped on something to make the bleeding hearts feel good about restricting people's constitutional rights... it has nothing to do with assault rifles or other full auto capable weapons, or with reducing crime.

Incorrect. That's only NRA propaganda. It goes along with "scary black weapons". There are defining characteristics of an assault weapon and much enhanced functionality in an assault situation as a result of them. I've been over this in some detail.