Summations Only

It strikes me that you're using rules and ideas from the 18th century to govern your activities in the 21st. To the outside world this approach looks like madness.When old rules no longer work for the societies they are designed for rational people change them, and irrational ones turn to biblical style fundamentalism - "it's what it says in the book."

He may be getting some help from one of those guns and ammo sites that compiles these kind of news articles. IMO it does not do much for your case to complain about accurate info that someone else manages to find, regardless of the method. I've never thought much of the 'count the hits' type of arguments anyway since there can be many duplicates. But generating a list of individual gun incidents occurring over a week period is pretty impressive.Just to add some perspective, the stats on just children killed is about 2 per week on average. In one week in Feb this year three children were killed in Houston alone in careless gun accidents.

Yeah, you're right, this might not be workable. I'll wait to see what Cat Sci says before deciding whether to put any more effort into it.2 child firearm deaths per week is fairly alarming. Since there are around 8,000 gun deaths per year (not counting suicides), that means around 700 of them are children, or a little under 10% of all gun deaths.--Percy

Not a valid or constructive response.--Percy

But typical.

That's rich coming from a subject to a crown

I linked to it before:http://www.reddit.com/r/dguFor some strange reason, /r/ogu is private. I've applied for access.

You do realize that 21st century British royalty is nothing like it was in the 18th century don't you?
Therefore you have supported the argument against you.

I didn't say it did. I said that the bar on infringing is only BECAUSE of the militia, not because of some imagined "natural right". That's what you keep ignoring and/or evading. You've either misunderstood or misrepresented my conclusions.

But somehow we managed to control our gun nuts by modernising our laws and you guys appear to be incapable of it. We just tell Queenie (God bless her and all who sail in her) what we want to do and she signs the bit of paper making it law. It's a ceremonial duty only, the concept of Queenie refusing to do the will of parliament is inconceivable.But maybe you could address the point?

Initially, the first amendment did apply only to the federal government. It was not until the passing of the fourteeth amendment which, among other things, forbid the states from restricting rights included in the Bill of Rights, that the first amendment applied to the states. Not only that, but in this very thread a court case has been cited explicitly saying that the 2nd amendment initially applied only to the federal government.Prior to the civil war, the Southern states were free to do things like banning books because they depicted slavery in an unfavorable light. It is also the case that most of the stated did have state religions during the first decade after the constitution was passed.So the "nonsense" conclusion ringo's position leads to would seem to be perfectly correct. Although the first amendment was not modified, a brand new amendment to the constitution was required to change the scope of the 1st, 2nd, and 4-6th amendments to apply to the states. In fact, some portions of those amendments are still not interpreted as applying to the states.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Okay, NoNukes was right, you're not using a search engine. Again, we have to use the same approach or it's not meaningful, although I'm listening if you have ideas for how to balance different approaches. Take your time.--Percy

Meh, count me out.Are you still standing by this?:

quote:

---

A gun-packing good guy getting the jump on a criminal is a myth. It's so rare that it's considered amazing every time it happens.

---

Its neither a myth, nor considered amazing every time it happens.

^^^ busted