Summations Only

I think it was something about you thinking that the government - local and federal - might at any time come after you, that you feared home invasion and kidnap, civil unrest and living too close to Mexicans. Well yes, it is. It's right there at the bottom of our needs, probably just after food. Ask an Iraqi.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

The difference between you, and people like you (or me) and jar, and people like jar when actual disaster strikes is: they want to shoot people they see as threats instead of helping people, whom they also see as threats. "I've got my own shit, fuck you go get your own shit or I'll shoot you"Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Of course, and we do. Why don't you think that people should be able to defend themselves?Every weapon, even your fist, has the potential for lethal force. We all have the capacity/power to defend ourselves with lethal force. If you remove that capability, then you no longer have the ability to defend yourself at all.How can you remove peoples' capacity to administer lethal force without eliminating their ability to defend themselves?

How do your laws go about determining whether or not an amount of force was reasonable?

Looks can be deceiving.... Remember this?:

quote:

---

Now on to guns, lets consider the state I live in: Illinois. We have about 3 million people living in our biggest city: Chicago. There's about 10 million of us in the rest of the state. In Chicago, there were 436 homicides in 2010 among 3 million people. That leaves 268 homicides among the other 10 million of us. So for kills per million (kpm), the entire state is at 54 kpm. But Chicago is at 145 kpm while the rest of the state is only at 27 kpm.

---

We ask what a reasonable person using the minimun force necessary to protect themselves would have done in the circumstances. This includes using lethal force if that is reasonable.

I don't see any mention, on the CPS website, of the force having to be the "minimum", but otherwise this sounds just like our federal government's position on the matter.

Minimum is assumed, but the actual test is whether the force was excessive or not. It's what was reasonable in the circumstances that matters most.

Ah, but I don't fear such things, I prepare for them. Nor do I think the federal, state or local government would come after me. I've lived through periods when those things have broken down and failed totally to prevent general lawlessness. Did you notice the quotes?

You seem to think Chicago exists in a vacuum, untouched by the world around it.

The key factor is that it is an objective test. The Court looks to determine what a hypothetical average man would think was reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. (Rather quaintly, the case law requires us to ask what "the man on the Clapham omnibus" - in other words, a normal, reasonable member of the community - would have done). What this means is that it is not enough for someone asserting self-defence to show that they thought they used reasonable force - they also have to show that it was objectively reasonable.This will always be a question of fact, in each case, and of course, no case is the same as another. Over time, a body of case law builds up, and general patterns emerge, but it is always up to a jury, guided by the judge and by previous similar decisions, to decide if the force used was, in each case, objectively reasonable.If I get time, I'll look up some case law for some examples for you, but in general terms, that's how it works.

It's not a case of forgetting, I didn't know anyone thought that purchases of guns and ammo by today's U.S. government were anywhere near voters, or even elected officials. We don't vote for anyone in the Dept. of Homeland Security, the EPA, the IRS, the Dept. of Justice, the FMCSA, the list of U.S. bureaucracies with purchasing power is almost endless. The evolution of the multi-trillion dollar U.S. government has gone far beyond the voters to measurably make any difference in things like hardware purchases within the time span of one entire generation. I'm not saying that's a reason for a revolution, but it's a step towards understanding reality. You didn't say anything specifically. You said;

quote:

---

The significant issue is still how to reduce gun deaths.

---

And you didn't see any there?? What do you think about news media sensationalism? Let me try a less raggedy package this time. As long as this thread is, it isn't much different than most gun control discussions - it's largely about only two choices; more gun laws versus doing nothing. This puts pro-gun people on the defensive every time. But by looking at gun violence as a human behavior issue rather than a hardware issue, it can greatly broaden the discussion, if anti-gun violence people are honest. A look at the background of some of the past mass murderers in the U.S. (not the types or sizes of guns they used) shows us that;The Ft Hood Shooter was a Registered Democrat and Muslim. The Columbine Shooters were too young to vote, but both of their families were Registered Democrats and progressive liberals. The Virginia Tech shooter wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff and was a registered Democrat. The Colorado theater shooter was a registered Democrat, a staff worker on the Obama campaign, an occupy wall street participant, and a progressive liberal. There's no evidence that I know of that they were Christians, or NRA members. Would you say they showed "blind, pitiless, indifference in their acts of murder? How is that completely different from the blind, pitiless, indifference that the scientific community puts forward as it describes life's origins, existence, and death?Steven Weinberg, a scientific leader similar in status to Dawkins, claimed that one of science's greatest accomplishments should be to weaken the hold of religion. One of the things that they, and many other leaders in the scientific community will do as they attempt to weaken the hold of religion, is to refer to Christians as "sheep", or a "flock" who follow a certain leader, or even Bible teachings. So could the blind, pitiless indifference of scientific sheep, who follow scientific community leaders be linked in any way to the blind, pitiless indifference of the above mass murderers? If not, why? Can a case be made for a complete disconnect from the two? If not, maybe an overhaul of the way public school children are taught could go much further in reducing gun violence than gun laws for law abiding people. I'm not advocating teaching religion, but more actual history would be a good start, or any other secular subject that could more clearly show that there really is (and always has been) good and evil in the world, despite the remarks of Richard Dawkins.Again, how about the consideration of news media sensationalism with the evidence that some shootings are "copycat" shootings? A windfall profits tax on them wouldn't violate their first amendment rights one iota. Or how about a law that prohibits them from displaying a picture of the shooter? There could be any number of laws that would at least somewhat discourage the news media from doing anything they want to cash in on mass shootings.I think I know why these things aren't discussed - because these types of new laws and changes WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING TO INCREASE THE POWER OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. That's what I meant with the phrase above "if the anti-gun-violence people are honest".So those are my proposals for reducing gun deaths, and there could be many more similar ones, but unfortunately for the Democrat party and one of their main special interests, the scientific community, it wouldn't give them any more power and money. So are those types of proposals automatically disregarded by mainstream gun control advocates?If there are no substantive replies to this in the next few days, I'll summarize and finish up.

The problem when you spew shit is that it usually comes back and hits you in the face. You do know that these claims can be researched don't you?http://www.examiner.com/...ly-registered-democrats-is-a-myth

quote:

---

1. Nidal Hasan (the Ft. Hood shooter) lived in either Virginia (his state of residence prior to being sent to Ft. Hood) or Texas, neither of which has partisan registration. Therefore the claim that he was a "registered Democrat" is false. I do not know if he voted or how he voted, but I do know that unless he was registered in a state in which he did not reside, that the claim that he is a registered Democrat is FALSE.

---

Unless of course you have evidence to back your shit up.

quote:

---

Since Virginia does not have partisan registration there is also no way to tell whether Seung-Hui Cho was a Democrat, but again because there is no partisan registration in the state we can say that the claim that he is a registered Democrat is FALSE. (Update: A more obvious point is that Cho was a resident alien, not a US citizen, so he was not eligible to vote in the US)

---

Unless of course you have evidence to back your shit up.

quote:

---

The false allegation that James Holmes was a registered Democrat was based on a Breitbart blogger named Joel Pollack, who found voter registration records for a DIFFERENT James Holmes who was approximately the same age as the shooter James Holmes. Alex Jones’ Infowars and other right-wing websites then incredulously repeated the false information without verifying it. It was later determined that the Colorado Theater Shooter James Holmes was NOT registered to vote, as evidenced by this retraction: {Newly-released information on the suspect’s birthdate (which, as indicated in our initial report, was a slight mismatch), combined with new details Breitbart News has obtained about the suspect’s likely addresses, together suggest that the suspect may, in fact, not have been registered to vote.}. However, most conservative bloggers continued to promote the lie without printing the Breitbart site's retraction. The claim that James Holmes was a registered Democrat is FALSE.

---

Unless of course you have evidence to back your shit up.

quote:

---

Klebold and Harris of course were not old enough to vote and they had no apparent political affiliation. Allegations that they came from families of Democrats or liberal progressives appear to have no sources to substantiate those claims. What little ideology the boys demonstrated owed mostly to an admiration for Timothy McVeigh not Ted Kennedy. Harris’ father was a retired Air Force pilot and Eric Harris wanted to join the Marine Corps. The boys lived in Littleton, Colorado a relatively conservative and affluent suburb of Denver. The claim that their parents were Democrats is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Any suggestion that the two boys were Democrats is demonstrably FALSE.

---

Unless of course you have evidence to back your shit up.So I call complete BULLSHIT. Either your sources are liars or you are a liar. Either way it makes your argument worthless.

Such a law would definitely violate the first amendment. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Government reflects the will of the people. If voters really wanted a government with fewer arms then they would vote for candidates who share that view, and eventually the government would have fewer arms.About your proposals for reducing gun deaths, you want to:

• Put constraints on the news media regarding the reporting of gun deaths.
  ​
• Put less emphasis on science and teach more history and other secular subjects in public schools.

Uh - interesting.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.