Summations Only

Wrong. I never disagreed with your statement about the poll. If you believe that I, did I challenge you to point to any statement of such disagreement. My very first post on the subject was a statement of agreement. When people are asked question about agreeing with proposition X, it is quite clear that they disagree about proposition X. Election results are nowhere near that specific. Opposition or maybe just expressing a favorite other guy. Or maybe they did not like one or more of Hitler's positions, so they expressed opposition to one or more of them. But which position exactly? His position on the constitution? On the Jews? On what exactly? Because they saw his as a demagogue?Romney lost the last election by similar numbers. Based on that alone, what can we conclude people objected to about Romney? Everything?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Exactly so. Scalia acknowledges here that most of the gun control measures that currently exist in the states are constitutional, and in fact, DC passed very tight measures requiring registration in response to DC v. Heller. Heller has since appealed and gotten nowhere.By contrast, the majority of state legislatures that have changed their laws have loosen restrictions rather than increasing them. Apparently a segment of the population does not even respect the idea of private owners banning guns on their own property. The link below discusses a story regarding opposition to the Republican Party not allowing gun toting at their convention.Guns at GOP convention petition tops 35K, Trump wants to study 'fine print'

quote:

---

Posted on the website change.org, the petition of unknown origin notes that "though Ohio is an open carry state, which allows for the open carry of guns, the hosting venue -- the Quicken Loans Arena -- strictly forbids the carry of firearms on their premises." That "is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and puts all attendees at risk," said the petition that has more than 34,000 signers.

---

Let me play this too.The US constitution will have no affect on slavery unless the people want it to.The US constitution will have no affect on whether Obama or any other president leaves office at the end of his term unless the people want it to.The US constitution has no affect on whether immigrants born this country are US citizens unless the people want it to.But it turns out, that by and large people in this country, including those who disagree with the SC do abide by the law.I suppose there is some sense in which all of those statements are correct. And yet perhaps your point is of somewhat limited value.The US constitution currently allows gun control. The absence of many common sense measures on which the public is largely in agreement is only tenuously related to the constitution even now.

Taking these numbers at face value still falls short of an argument in my opinion. Surely violent crimes include things like robberies, car jackings for example. What generally happens to people who don't have guns when they encounter such situations? How many of these defenses involve people with guns getting into encounters that the rest of us don't get into? How many of those defenses involve avoiding an ass whopping in a fight only an idiot would have gotten into in the first place. Because God forbid anyone take whooping with impunity.The 90,000 number seems to stand on its own merits. However the 160,000 number needs quite a bit of parcing out before we can see some kind of balance between the relative safety involved with having or not having a gun.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Violent crime does not mean death or even injury. It means there was a threat that such a thing might happen, but did not, and that a gun was involved. But many people get through those things without a gun. On the other hand, death means death.What you are defending is that the mere fear that you might be exposed to a threat justifies the gun regardless of the 90,000 deaths. That a death for example, is equivalent or balanced by the fact that someone tried to strong arm you for you iPhone. I don't find such arguments the least bit persuasive. The value of a human life exceeds the value of your things, and violent crime encompasses lots of things and defending yourself with a gun includes situations where a life was taken needlessly.

That map inside the article that indicates where the toddler shootings are concentrated is quite chilling. I suppose the response might be along the lines, what is a dead kid a week when 160,000 people defend themselves against a violent crime[1]?[1]by whatever definition of 'defend' and 'violent crime' is necessary and whatever period is needed to create the statistic.

Several of these listed events are officially referred to as battles. If we want to pursue that kind of list, then surely a number of civil war battles fought in the US would dwarf these counts. Perhaps all of the Indian examples as well as the Fort Pillow incident are omitted on this basis or on the basis of being government sanctioned and 'rightful' law and order killings. Medals of honor were actually handed out to government troops in the Wounded Knee massacres.No idea why the others are not counted. Absolutely no cover for any of those things not to be counted as gun violence.

No crime here. Police reports later indicated that the guns were properly registered just the way all responsible, law abiding gun owners do.Former CMU Running Back Zurlon Tipton Dies In Accidental Shooting At Roseville Dealership – CBS Detroit

quote:

---

ROSEVILLE, Mich. Zurlon Tipton, a former Indianapolis Colts running back, has died after accidentally shooting himself at a car dealership in suburban Detroit. He was 26.

​

St. John Hospital spokesman Brian Taylor confirmed Tipton’s death Tuesday. Police say he was handling a duffel bag when a gun in the bag fired as he dropped off his car in Roseville.

---

Former CMU Running Back Zurlon Tipton Dies In Accidental Shooting At Roseville Dealership – CBS Detroit

quote:

---

He was gathering up personal belongings from the interior of the vehicle, putting them into a backpack, book bag type container, said Glandon. While doing so, one of two guns that were in that backpack discharged, striking this individual in the stomach."

---

Florida gun range shooting: 'The gun didn't kill my boy. I did,' father says | CNNClayton Brumby on shooting is son at the world's safest gun range:

quote:

---

"The gun didn't kill my boy. I did," he told CNN.

---

The incident has not changed his views of guns, he said. He still intends to keep them in the home and use them for self-defense of his home and family.

Cleveland police officer's toddler fatally shoots self | CNN

quote:

---

The 2-year-old son of a Cleveland police officer fatally shot himself with his father's service weapon Friday morning, police said in a statement.

​

Officers responded to a home on Library Avenue about 10:30 a.m. and took the child to MetroHealth Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.
The boy's unidentified father has been with department since 1993.

---

Further demonstration of the adage, "Guns don't kill people. Toddlers kill people."

Well, he got to keep his iPhone too!On a serious note, protecting your belongings by ending a life at the cost of a few cents worth of bullets and a flesh would is totally acceptable bargain for some folks.By the way, whatever happen to that case in Texas last year where the good Samaritan stopped a car jacking by shooting the car owner in the head and then "beat feet" before the police showed up?

And just how does NC hold adults responsible in such a case.From the article:

quote:

---

State law says all guns must be properly stored when unsupervised children are in the home. Beaufort County Chief Deputy Charlie Rose says they are looking to see if that law applies in this case and whether any charges should be filed.

---

Interesting. Let's see what the law actually says:

quote:

---

Pursuant to state law, any person who resides with a minor and owns or possesses a firearm stored or left: 1) in a condition in which it can be discharged; and 2) in a manner that the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised minor would be able to gain access to the firearm, is criminally liable for a misdemeanor if the minor gains access to the firearm and:

​

Possesses the firearm on educational property;
Exhibits the firearm in a public place in a careless, angry or threatening manner;
Causes personal injury or death with the firearm, except in self-defense; or
Uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.

---

That's right. Someone is potentially guilty of a misdemeanor. Maybe. I'm betting that nobody will be charged.

Uh, do you two understand what "beyond reproach" means?

As has been highlighted in a couple of court cases this week, police use their guns to respond when afraid. Such responses are not always properly called "for defense".

Nevermind... life's too short...Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.