BS: Guns in America

Subject: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 16 Apr 18 - 06:43 AM

There is a gun sickness here in America. Like so many others, I have written letters, signed petitions and contributed money but the people, in our country, who make the laws are owned by the people who make the guns. Please check out this YouTube video:
    https://youtu.be/dxstFRT2djE
and consider passing it on.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:01 PM

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/05/read-understand-rational-support-gun-rights/

"An unaddressed question thus far is, aggression by whom and independence from whom? On the surface there are two answers: criminals who seek plunder, rape, or murder; and the state itself. At essence, however, there is but one answer: the gun provides a last line of resistance against any initiator of force, whether the context be that of simple crime, an ineffective state allowing marauders a wide berth, or the state metastasizing into the gravest threat to personal wellbeing.

For millions of Americans, the right to a gun is the right to live independently, and now a mass movement is threatening to dismantle it. Gun controllers’ ostensible aim is to live in a safe society, but from the perspective of the gun advocate the measures being proposed would make individuals dependent on and at the mercy of the state for safety and thus rob them of the fundamental right to preserve their own lives.

What gun controllers want is safety. What gun owners and gun-rights advocates want is to be at the mercy of no one else. To not be mistaken as a proponent of anarchy, I must stress that I consider the state a vital institution for employing retaliatory force. But the state is not omnipresent. A personal weapon fills the void in emergency situations of defense until the arrival of authorized state force, thus preserving independence while respecting that of others."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:07 PM

The conclusion to the article, which seems right on target. IMO, until BOTH sides listen to the other side and address the concerns expressed in a reasonable fashion, there will be no resolution of the concerns of EITHER side.

"s flat-out bigotry—that is, “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” "



"The safety versus independence gulf is pronounced in this context, but is demonstrated in many others, too, as Jonathan Haidt describes in “The Righteous Mind,” which lays out six moral foundations. These include a care/harm foundation and a liberty/oppression foundation, the two contrasting principles around which I believe this debate hinges. This paradigm offers great insight into the differing perspective for persons on either side.

The gulf between the gun control view and the gun qua tool of independence view is wide and deep—perhaps even unbridgeable—and only when we recognize this will we realize why calls for “commonsense” gun reform yield only acrimony."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:26 PM

There is a psychopathology somewhere here to my POV.

I kinda like mercy. Who do armed Nazis need mercy from, Snowflakes, FBI, Santa?

I seem to have lived 'independently' so far..
except for the schools, roads, institutional and private food supply, utilities, health care, music, the arts etc..

Guns are the answer if you want a cure for all racism and religious bigotry, just get rid of all the different people. - Ah there is the underlying sickness in many gun arguments.

Yesterday a conscientious student overslept and took a city bus instead of the school bus. oops wrong bus, so he gets off and asks for directions to his school - but is shot at by a protective homeowner.

Scared too? Need a gun? Would you like my RPG?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:27 PM

First off, thank you for fixing my link.
The issue of gun ownership, gun safety, societal safety and the obligation we have to each other in society comes down to this. It is sad that so many think they need a personal weapon to protect themselves from perceived danger in our society. Weather or not you believe this perception is correct, it does not seem necessary (to me) to own weapons that can kill dozens and dozens of people in under a minute. That does not seem like self protection. That seems, to me, like something very dangerous and very unnecessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:34 PM

ooooo big words bruce.

I prefer to keep it simple and real.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:39 PM

Donual,

If you HAVE an RPG, YOU are in violation of the law, and a felon. RPG are considered weapons of mass destruction, just as pipe-bombs and grenades.


When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

You remain one of those with "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own"



As for " if you want a cure for all racism and religious bigotry, just get rid of all the different people"

Isn't THAT what YOU are in the process of doing? ANYONE who differs with YOUR opinions is evil, wrong, Nazi, and should be removed. When do you start the ovens up? No room for ANY discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:49 PM

I will protect you.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:56 PM

I am the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 04:07 PM

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/03/gun-control-reduce-murder-lets-run-numbers-across-world/

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/16/we-cant-have-a-debate-about-guns-if-liberals-keep-lying-about-them/

If you cared about reducing the killing RATHER than reducing the guns, you would be working to prevent teenagers from driving, drinking alcohol, having abortions, using drugs, and being hit by lightning.

ALL of which kill more than rifles do in a given year.

Since you do NOT do so, you obviously want to keep others from having guns, rather than save lives.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#1d21758e5edc


Try reading what others think about things BEFORE you call us Nazis and dismiss our concerns.



http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/354618-the-simple-truth-is-that-guns-help-not-hurt-millions-of-americans

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 04:26 PM

Yikes. People get so angry so quickly. How about some calm discussion
There is a gun sickness here in America. Let’s talk specifically about assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. Here in America, we have confused and distorted the right defined by the Second Amendment to the Constitution –
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
This speaks to a state organized and regulated militia for public defense not to private individuals or groups of individuals arming themselves for their own purposes.
The second amendment was never intended to provide a highly dangerous permission for private citizens to own weapons that can kill large numbers of people in very short periods of time.
Regardless of my or your understanding of the Second Amendment, we do currently regulate the ownership of dangerous weapons. Private citizens are not allowed to purchase, sell or own hand grenades. Why? Because they are so dangerous that the safety of all of us overrides the individual right to own one.
In a public setting such as a school, a sick, cowardly individual could in about ten seconds use a hand grenade to kill dozens of innocent people, but we are relatively safe from such an occurrence because hand grenades are illegal and very hard to get.   
In a public setting such as a school, a sick, cowardly individual could in about 10 to 15 seconds use a semi-automatic weapon such as an AR-15 to kill dozens of innocent people. We are not very safe from this possibility. Such weapons are legal for private ownership and very easy to get.
Like so many others, I have written letters, signed petitions and contributed money but the people, in our country, who make the laws are owned by the people who make the guns.
How about prohibiting private citizens from buying, selling or owning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines?
This is a life and death matter and we can do something to save lives. Many may choose to deflect or ignore this reasonable idea. But when the next awful thing happens what will you say to yourselves and what will you say to our children?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 05:23 PM

was that the youtube the guy wanted put up there?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 05:34 PM

Yes. Thank you Big Al

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 05:39 PM

Sean it all sounds reasonable to me.

This decade saw
300,000 men women and children killed at this intersection but city hall finds it to expensive to put up a stop light.

I hope the kids will
install a red light
   one brand new day
as the old fade away.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: keberoxu
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 07:15 PM

The leader of one of the Baltic States --
and yes, this is a post-Soviet leader --

once said,
"If I had a choice between a bomb and this book,
I prefer this book."

What book was it?
Hint:
The book's author died recently, of natural causes,
and there was nothing that had to be pried out of his cold dead hands,
particularly no gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 08:52 PM

I give up keberoxu
Fill in the blanks
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 11:22 PM

Naw I prefer my 30-06 for target shooting i cannot hit anything with a book I keep missing

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 11:27 PM

Besides I cannot throw a book very far but once I did nail a pesky house fly

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 06:52 AM

Old Dude. I find it interesting we use the same name for this site (Sean Fear is Irish for Old Man). Where do you stand on private citizens owning assault weapons and why?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 07:28 AM

...now a mass movement is threatening to dismantle it nonsense. Nobody, but nobody, is trying to take away people's right to bear arms. That is gun-totin' propaganda.

What some are trying to do is limit the arms you can purchase. Or sell.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 08:23 AM

They got guns in America (Whoa - oh -no)
They got guns in America (Whoa - oh -no)
Ev'rybody listen to your children shout:
"No, no, no not in our name, no, no, no, no, no,no, no!"

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 08:29 AM

1. Define assault weapon. ( serious request- does it have to be black with a handle on top?)

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/the-assault-weapons-ban-is-a-stupid-idea-pushed-by-stupid-people/

"This speaks to a state organized and regulated militia for public defense not to private individuals or groups of individuals arming themselves for their own purposes"

Not what the Supreme Court has said- Yes, that could be change, but so could Roe vs. Wade. Want to see which change would get more public support?

" high capacity ammunition magazines"

Let me see- In NY, that is more than seven rounds. They are already prohibited there.

In MD, anything over 10 rounds cannot be made, transferred, or sold.

Yet the Internet has the code to make 30 round AR-15 magazines with ANY 3d printer, and a bit of wire.


Hell, it takes 2 pipes, a nail, a piece of 2x4 and tape to make a shotgun. (We made a million or so to drop on France in WW II)

And a M97 trench gun will out shoot an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine in killing large numbers in a crowd. ( 9-11 30 cal pellets per round, 6+1 in the chamber rounds = 63 to 77 projectiles- Why do you think we used them rather than automatic weapons to clear trenches in WW I?)


"Nobody, but nobody, is trying to take away people's right to bear arms."

https://fee.org/articles/gun-control-advocates-are-finally-admitting-what-they-really-want/

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/02/left-will-finally-admit-want-repeal-second-amendment/


How about looking at the real problems that cause shootings, rather than attack those who legally and safely have guns?

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/26/march-lives-blames-everyone-except-failed-protect-parkland/

As for the NRA controlling anything,
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/19/want-gun-control-stop-calling-nra-terrorist-organization/

Maybe we should stop Federal funding of Planned Parenthood- how many do they kill with abortions each year??? AND they spend more than the NRA on lobbying.


At least admit you would NOT allow the rest of the Bill Of Rights to be interpreted as you have the 2nd amendment.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/20/lets-model-speech-control-on-gun-control/

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 09:02 AM

ok Beardedbruce
A fair amount of information and concerns in your post.
To simplify, if we could agree on a working definition of "assault weapon" and on "high capacity ammunition magazine" would you acknowledge to need to prohibit private citizen ownership of weapons and ammunition clips that enable an individual to kill large numbers (to be defined) of people in a short period (to be defined)of time?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 09:16 AM

re assault weapons- I have no problem with the present ban on assault RIFLES, and feel it should be maintained. THEY are fully automatic, and have been limited since 1934. ( as hve sawed off shotguns and such)

If the definition is that it scares people, just remember that the PRIMARY purpose of having a weapon in self defense is to scare the intruder away. ANYONE who, in breaking into a home, hears the sound of a shell being chambered in a pump shotgun, even if they are armed, will rethink whether his decision was a good one.

As for high capacity magazines, tell me HOW you will prevent them from being available- should we confiscate all 3-d printers?

As I stated, the M97 ( 1897) trench gun is far more effective in killing large numbers of people than the AR-15. But it is basically the same as the shotguns used for bird hunting and skeet. And it was NEVER controlled as an "assault weapon".

How about we prohibit private ownership or use of any vehicle with more than 75 horsepower? Who needs more than that, and it would reduce automotive fatalities.

There are too many unknowns in your comment to agree to it without discussion.

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 09:43 AM

Bruce
There are reasonable limits on much of what we do in society. There are speed limits on highways, inspections on vehicles, licenses to drive, etc. just to touch on one of your examples. There are lots of weapons that can inflict lots of harm. Do you think private citizens should be able to own guns or rifles that can inflict as much harm as a hand grenade in the roughly the same amount of time. I am not being argumentative or antagonistic in asking this question. I am truly trying to understand a point of view which seems so different from my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 09:53 AM

ANY shotgun would be covered under your criteria.

Duck hunters would be a little upset.

Many of the present cases of firearm misuse is ALREADY criminal and prohibited. UNTIL the present laws are ENFORCED, I fail to see that ANY new laws will have an effect on reducing deaths- though they will have an effect of LAW-ABIDING people having access to guns.This would lead to a GREATER death rate, as the presence of legal guns is known to reduce the use of illegal ones.

Let us say that you confiscate 250,000,000 million guns ( in the US) from those who obey the laws and use them for legal purposes.

Now you have 50,000,000 guns out there in criminal hands ( those who already ARE PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING GUNS) with no-one to prevent them fro doing whatever they like, to whomever they like.

Of course, in the UK, the present problem is knives.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/


And again, since it is easy to MAKE a firearm, or knife, how does removing them from law-abiding people reduce the murders? Tell me how, PLEASE.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 09:58 AM

IMO, the problem is NOT that there are too many guns in private hands, but that the social climate gives more rights to those who violate the law than to those who follow it.

How does making MORE laws that are not enforced solve anything?

Lets just send in the Ferguson Police force into black homes to confiscate the guns that might be there, OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:09 AM

"   Guns are strictly regulated in the United Kingdom and the rising homicide rate in London is directly attributable to a rise in knife-related crimes, with stabbings claiming at least 31 lives to date in 2018. By contrast, New York—which has a population roughly the same size as London—has seen a steady decline in violent crime.

    There were 15 murders committed in London in February and another 22 in March, while New York saw 14 murders in February and 21 in March, according to murder rate statistics provided…by London’s Metropolitan Police and the New York Police Department.

But this is not a parody. It’s a real news report, which goes on to describe Britain’s existing knife control laws.

    In Britain, it is currently illegal to carry a knife longer than three inches in public ‘without good reason’ and illegally carrying a knife can be punished with up to four years in prison and an ‘unlimited fine.’ Self-defense is not listed among the examples of ‘good reasons to carry a knife.’"


MORE MURDERS than in NYC!

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:20 AM

Bruce and others no matter what your point of view. I asked a clear, specific question. "Do you think private citizens should be able to own guns or rifles that can inflict as much harm as a hand grenade in the roughly the same amount of time." We can easily overwhelm each other with tangential statistics. I would be interested in hearing a YES or NO from folks and a concise,simple WHY you hold that point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:25 AM

I don't really have a problem with upsetting duck hunters, or almost any other hunters for that matter. Killing animals, somehow, should not be recreation, even if you do eat the meat.

Killing animals because there is no other way for you to get food, I have no issue with.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:32 AM

OK, YES,

I think that law-abiding citizens should be able to own non-fully automatic weapons even if they do have bayonet mounts, pistol grips, or stacking swivels (THAT being what the previous banned "assault weapon" had that made it illegal). If the criminal has access to a semi-automatic rifle, I would want the person defending herself against that criminal to have the same access.

"that can inflict as much harm as a hand grenade in the roughly the same amount of time." is not much- the standard defense against grenades is for ONE person to throw himself on it and save everyone else. A car driven recklessly is far more dangerous than a grenade, even ignoring the many-TNT stick equivalent explosive in the tank.




Now, do YOU think that people should be able to kill their children because they are inconvenient? At what age is this right no longer valid?

YES OR NO.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:35 AM

Sean Fear and others no matter what your point of view. I asked a clear, specific question. "Now, do YOU think that people should be able to kill their children because they are inconvenient? At what age is this right no longer valid? "

We can easily overwhelm each other with tangential statistics. I would be interested in hearing a YES or NO from folks and a concise,simple WHY you hold that point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:47 AM

Bruce - thanks for your answer. I will respond to it and then answer your off topic question
Criminals and sick angry people are able to get these highly dangerous weapons BECAUSE they are so readily available in our society.

As to your question - No. I think no one should be able to kill a child for any reason. Human life is a gift we need to protect.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:52 AM

In Britain, it is currently illegal to carry a knife longer than three inches in public ‘without good reason’ and illegally carrying a knife can be punished with up to four years in prison and an ‘unlimited fine.’ Self-defense is not listed among the examples of ‘good reasons to carry a knife.’"
Slight clarification: It is the length of the blade which is limited.
Here:

Basic laws on knives

It’s illegal to:
•sell a knife to anyone under 18, unless it has a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less
•carry a knife in public without good reason, unless it has a folding blade with a cutting edge 3 inches long or less
•carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife
•use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:53 AM

But the present law is that ANY child can be disposed of until it is of a certain age. ( see Roe vs. Wade)
"Based on available state-level data, approximately 893,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2016—down from approximately 914,000 abortions in 2015.
In 2014, an estimated 926,240 abortions took place in the United States—down from 1.06 million in 2011, 1.21 million abortions in 2008, 1.2 million in 2005, 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S (AGI).
In 2014, approximately 19% of U.S. pregnancies (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion.1
According to the United Nations' 2013 report, only nine countries in the world have a higher reported abortion rate than the United States. They are: Bulgaria, Cuba, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, Sweden, and Ukraine.*

*Though the UN lists China's official abortion rate at 19.2, China's actual abortion rate is likely much higher. According to China's 2010 census, there were approximately 310 million women of reproductive age in the country. An estimated 13-23 million abortions happen annually in China, resulting in an adjusted abortion rate of 41.9-74.2. The abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.
In 2014, the highest percentage of pregnancies were aborted in the District of Columbia (38%), New York (33%), and New Jersey (30%). The lowest percentage of pregnancies were aborted in Utah (5%), South Dakota (4%), and Wyoming (<2%). (AGI abortion data + CDC birth data).
In 2014, approximately 37% of all pregnancies in New York City (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion (CDC)."


So, far more lives at risk- ready to overturn Roe v. Wade?

"Criminals and sick angry people are able to get these highly dangerous weapons BECAUSE they are so readily available in our society. "

I disagree. The PRESENT laws say that they cannot get them. Are you stating that the LAW IS NOT EFFECTIVE?

Quick! Pass a bunch MORE laws that we can ignore!

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:03 AM

Present gun laws allow for millions and millions of highly dangerous weapons to flood our society. People with all sorts of antisocial agendas can and do legally purchase weapons that can and do kill large numbers of innocent people. This happens and has been happening regularly for years. I believe we should legislate rational limits to the type of weapons private citizens can own, just as we regulate and limit other sorts of dangers within our society.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:04 AM

Thank you, Nigel.


"It’s illegal to: use any knife in a threatening way"
So the murders in London were done in a non-threatening way?????



Sort of like the US "It is illegal to shoot people."

I would be in favor of EFFECTIVE, REALISTIC laws to control CRIMINAL access to firearms. When you propose that, try looking for support here from those who place the desire to remove guns from law-abiding citizens above the desire to save lives.


http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/21/4-major-problems-with-gun-control-arguments/

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:11 AM

"It’s illegal to: use any knife in a threatening way"
So the murders in London were done in a non-threatening way?????

No, that means that using a knife to threaten someone, even if you don't follow through on the threat, brings it under the heading of "knife-crime". The penalties there may be harsher than for 'assault'.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:13 AM

Bruce - IF criminals were effectively deprived access to highly dangerous firearms that can kill large numbers of people in short periods of time, would you still want to own such a weapon?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:20 AM

"Present gun laws allow for millions and millions of highly dangerous weapons to flood our society."

Of the 350,000,000 estimated guns presently in the US, HOW MANY are used illegally, and why are the laws against that use NOT enforced?



" People with all sorts of antisocial agendas can and do legally purchase weapons that can and do kill large numbers of innocent people."

I disagree- in almost all cases, there is a violation of the law, and the person SHOULD NOT have had access to firearms. But should the failure of the police and government agencies ( that are the ones who will "protect" you when only the criminals have guns) mean that law-abiding citizens must have their rights removed? If they cannot stop the criminals from getting guns, how can I expect them to protect me and my family? They have stated that they are NOT responsible for ensuring citizen's safety.

-------
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. [6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," [7] but failed to remove him from his father's custody.

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]
-------


"This happens and has been happening regularly for years. "

The number of cases where "assault rifles( your term)" kill people is orders of magnitude less than the number killed by misuse of automobiles- so why not restrict cars and alcohol and save more lives ? ( See Prohibition for how effective that is- a pity that History is no longer required for a "liberal" education)
And it is more likely that a student will be killed by a lightning strike than by a semi-automatic rifle of any sort.




"I believe we should legislate rational limits to the type of weapons private citizens can own, just as we regulate and limit other sorts of dangers within our society. "

I agree- but we differ on what are rational and EFFECTIVE limits.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:34 AM

Bruce
Comparing automobiles and guns is a red herring and honestly not helpful to a clear discussion on guns.
Unfortunately I am now called away from my chat with you. I appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts. I will think about what you have written. I hope you will think about what I have written.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:36 AM

Sean I hate the ar rifles they are miserable to hunt with and just as bad for target. They are great for war and that’s it. I could care less if they all got thrown in the abyss

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 01:30 PM

Also miserable for home defense why would anyone want it. If you think it would protect you home, it would go through your walls and your neighbors also. Only good for war

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 01:40 PM

Sorry, olddude. The AAR-15 and it's clones is a fine varmint gun-

"In the last decades, many companies have started developing varmint rifles and the most popular rounds so far are the .222 Remington and the .218 Bee. However, the newer rounds that offer a higher velocity have started replacing these two classics. The most common calibers used in a varmint hunting rifle are the .223 Remington, the .22-250, the .220 Swift and the .25-06. For an air rifle varmint, even calibers smaller than .22 are capable of doing a good job. The .17 Remington and various other .17 caliber (4.5 mm) wildcats have a vocal following, and the new .204 Ruger is well suited to varminting, and may be the first in a new line of .20 caliber (5mm) rounds"



As for target shooting, they lack rangebut NO military firearm are even below average for target shooting- they like to hit what they aim at.

but the .223 cartridge is NOT one that will put a bullet through a wall. In country, they would be deflected by leaves and such- strictly line of sight. One would have to go to .30 or .45 to go through wallboard without deflection, and the proper frangible bullet will prevent that even at those calibers.


BTW, got a 4992B for the sweep second hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 01:50 PM

"Comparing automobiles and guns is a red herring and honestly not helpful to a clear discussion on guns. "

IF the object is to remove guns, than I would agree. I was under the impression that the object is to save lives. In which case to focus ONLY on guns is not helpful to a clear discussion. ( always look for the tall pole)

So is the intent to remove guns from law abiding citizens, or reduce the number of children ( and others) killed by accident and illegal actions?

WHICH IS IT?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:00 PM

Cars are necessary for many people.
Guns aren't.
The primar use of a car is transportation.
For a gun, it's to kill.

Stupid, desperate comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:04 PM

A bolt action 223 with a scope for ground hogs yes an ar no not really very good at all

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:06 PM

Jeri,
So is the intent to remove guns from law abiding citizens, or reduce the number of children ( and others) killed by accident and illegal actions?

There is NO valid reason to have automobiles with more than about a 75 HP engine.

Cars are not needed if you take cabs or buses.
Guns are needed if the police do NOT live in your house.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]


Your dismissal of other's concerns is what is Stupid, and desperate

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:09 PM

Olddude,

An AR-15 clone with a scope is as good as a bolt action. For the limited range the cartridge allows, they are almost identical in performance.

Not as pretty, though, I will give you.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:15 PM

Disagree my friend Barrels are to short and the optics are limited and the weight is too light for long range varmit hunting. At the range most of those guys can only do 200 yards with three inch groups. I do under that at 500 yards with a 243 Winchester