More guns keeping us safe.......

[Rustic]

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Lol
Your forgetting, ARs and the like are used in an Insignificant amount violence... we have much bigger fish to fry...

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

If any of thes epeople could magically stop mass shootings there would be no effect on the national murder rate whatsoever

Our homicide rate is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. Lots of lives to be saved.

Lol
Na, not really

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Easy answer. When the 2nd amendment was written it referenced back to the original English Bill or Rights and the Magna Carta and a whole other bunch of articles. That is why it didn't talk about firearms. It talks about Arms. The problem is, we outgrew that definition when the Walker Colt was introduced in 1851 and what came after that was an explosion of weapons creations that exceeded the original intent of all the "Arms" definitions. The Weapons outgrew Man. Think of the weapons that grew out of the Civil war itself. The Hotckiss Artillery, the Gatilin Gun, the Remington Revolver and Walker Colt in huge numbers. And it spiraled from there. By 1934, it was completely out of control. Yes, the Thompson and the Sawed Off Shotgun was used in the Military (no matter what the court said) but neither had any real use in the civilian world except for wholesale slaughter. Yes, you could hunt with them but there were much better alternatives. Their use was killing on a battle field. So in 1934, the 1934 National Firearms Act was created that limited certain weapons but did not ban them.

The AR-15 was created as a weapon of war. Although it can be used for hunting, like the Thompson, there are better alternatives. The features of the AR-15 is what makes it a weapon of war, not the cosmetics. In fact, it doesn't have an cosmetics. Each and every feature is there to make it useful on the battlefield. Including it's color. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for the AR-15. Oh, it still applies to other rifles but those weapons made specifically for war don't really apply to it anymore like the M-2, Grenades, LAWs, Bazooka, and more. The AR-15 is marginal in that definition. That is why they can be heavily regulated (not banned) by specifically naming them in a gun regulation law.

Why aren't you up in "Arms" about the fact that you can't carry a sword of a certain length openly? I would think you would be going totally zonkers over that. After all, that "Right" goes all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. Why aren't you going totally insane over the M-2 50 Cal or the M-60? How about the M-249?

The reason that the sawed off shotgun was heavily regulated in 1934 and Miller was found guilty in 1938 was the fact that until 1934, it was one of the primary weapons of carnage of the many mobs of the late 20s and early 30s that slaughters not only mobsters but thousands of innocents. Had the AR-15 been around during that time, I am sure that the Mob would have adopted them as well and continued the slaughter and they would have been lumped in as well. But the AR wasn't introduced until 1958.

At some point, society needs to make choices. If something becomes contrary to public safety, or appears to be contrary to public safety, then the public will limit that something. In the case of the AR-15, the higher population centers can and will limit the AR-15 and have done so. Same goes for other weapons including handguns.

Again, the 2nd amendment only says "Arms". You want it to be specific, get it changed to read a more specific wording. Today, "Arms" is a very, very broad statement that includes guns, knives, clubs and even fists. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way because that is exactly what "Arms" really is. It's up to Society to specify exactly what "Arms" really is.

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Nice screed, the Walker Colt was 13 years before the Civil War. By the time of the Civil War the two main handguns were the 1851 Navy, and the 1860 Army model.

None of which matters a hill of beans.

The Founders wanted the PEOPLE to be able to overthrow the illigitimate government that the Founders knew would come.

That's why they wrote the 2nd in such a simple way.

Even with the paranoid thoughts, they wrote into the government the way to have a complete revolution every 2 to 4 years and it's been that way ever since. The United States has had a few times the Government has bordered on an "Illegitimate" Government. But each time, it's moved away from it back to the center. It all depends on who is defining it. Some would say that we are dangerously close to one right now. But I wouldn't. But I do see the makings of one there. But I also see the relief valves put into place by those crafty old Gentlemen that prevents one group from ever seizing control for very long.

By the same token, in the 19th and 20th century, I have seen safety valves put into place that further keep the total takeover of any one group of our Federal Government while keeping the United States protected from outside military invasions. The Federal Republic at all levels work if we work to make it work. So you can sleep well tonight. No one is going to seize control of our Government and our Military and turn it into a Kingdom. While that makes a good fictional book, it's not real.

To those who care to look the USA is now very reminiscent of Russia under the control of the Bureaus in the 1600's.

Yes, the Czar was the king, but the power was the bureaucracies. What they wanted to happen did.

This coup attempt by the swamp is a perfect continuation of the Russian experience that eventually led to revolution.

I guess the"Swamp" as you call them, are getting tired of their children being murdered in the schools and assemblies. How dare they. Everyone should be willing to just take their chances getting a chicken fried steak at a choak and puke. Afterall, this is the America you want, right? We can do better without rounding up all the guns through a lot of methods you scoff at.

Besides, this isn't Russia in 1600 or even the British Colonies in 1773. This isn't any of those. Something strange happened in 1789 that made America different and it's been different ever since. And it's been even more different every day since that day as well. We have grown way past those fears and phobias that brought us the 2nd amendment and only need to keep it in mind when making today's laws, doctrines and policies. It's now a base, it's not the absolute.

Learn from the last 50 years. And stop blaming someone else for your stupid problems and fears. They are yours, you own them, claim them as your own like I do my own.

 

[Rustic]

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Nice screed, the Walker Colt was 13 years before the Civil War. By the time of the Civil War the two main handguns were the 1851 Navy, and the 1860 Army model.

None of which matters a hill of beans.

The Founders wanted the PEOPLE to be able to overthrow the illigitimate government that the Founders knew would come.

That's why they wrote the 2nd in such a simple way.

Even with the paranoid thoughts, they wrote into the government the way to have a complete revolution every 2 to 4 years and it's been that way ever since. The United States has had a few times the Government has bordered on an "Illegitimate" Government. But each time, it's moved away from it back to the center. It all depends on who is defining it. Some would say that we are dangerously close to one right now. But I wouldn't. But I do see the makings of one there. But I also see the relief valves put into place by those crafty old Gentlemen that prevents one group from ever seizing control for very long.

By the same token, in the 19th and 20th century, I have seen safety valves put into place that further keep the total takeover of any one group of our Federal Government while keeping the United States protected from outside military invasions. The Federal Republic at all levels work if we work to make it work. So you can sleep well tonight. No one is going to seize control of our Government and our Military and turn it into a Kingdom. While that makes a good fictional book, it's not real.

To those who care to look the USA is now very reminiscent of Russia under the control of the Bureaus in the 1600's.

Yes, the Czar was the king, but the power was the bureaucracies. What they wanted to happen did.

This coup attempt by the swamp is a perfect continuation of the Russian experience that eventually led to revolution.

I guess the"Swamp" as you call them, are getting tired of their children being murdered in the schools and assemblies. How dare they. Everyone should be willing to just take their chances getting a chicken fried steak at a choak and puke. Afterall, this is the America you want, right? We can do better without rounding up all the guns through a lot of methods you scoff at.

Besides, this isn't Russia in 1600 or even the British Colonies in 1773. This isn't any of those. Something strange happened in 1789 that made America different and it's been different ever since. And it's been even more different every day since that day as well. We have grown way past those fears and phobias that brought us the 2nd amendment and only need to keep it in mind when making today's laws, doctrines and policies. It's now a base, it's not the absolute.

Learn from the last 50 years. And stop blaming someone else for your stupid problems and fears. They are yours, you own them, claim them as your own like I do my own.

Lol
Stop blaming firearms for violence… They have nothing to do with it.
You need to quit listening to the main stream media and watching Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Thank God for Second Amendment remedies

A woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, police say, but shot her husband instead - CNN

Nicholas Cole is in intensive care after being shot in the head during a road rage incident Saturday.

Unfortunately, police say it was his wife, Erica, who accidentally shot him.
According to the Cullman County Sheriff's Office, there was a road rage episode on Highway 69 in Dodge City, Alabama, about 6:45 p.m. Saturday. It carried over to a home on County Road 160 in Bremen.

During the incident, an altercation occurred in which, the offender, Erica Cole, attempted to shoot a second party but shot her husband, Nicholas Cole, striking him in the head," Cullman County Deputy Brad Williams said in a statement.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

Are you saying that the CDC has an imagination?

You think the cdc made up that 1.1 number? Now that is funny.

I am saying that the number 1.1 million isn't just the Defensive Sillyvillian shootings. I have seen that report and those numbers come from all sources including military and police shootings across the globe. But if you read Klecks report he inflates them further to 2.3 million. What the real number is, no one really knows. The Law Enforcements aren't releasing that number (actually, they have no way of really knowing) and CDC got out of that business because of people like Kleck trying to use their data to prove something it didn't say. Now, if you can present the "So Called" CDC report that states that there were 1.1 million defensive Civilian Shooting preventions then do so. But don't use anything based on Kleck which everything that's been presented to day refers right back to kleck.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Nice screed, the Walker Colt was 13 years before the Civil War. By the time of the Civil War the two main handguns were the 1851 Navy, and the 1860 Army model.

None of which matters a hill of beans.

The Founders wanted the PEOPLE to be able to overthrow the illigitimate government that the Founders knew would come.

That's why they wrote the 2nd in such a simple way.

Even with the paranoid thoughts, they wrote into the government the way to have a complete revolution every 2 to 4 years and it's been that way ever since. The United States has had a few times the Government has bordered on an "Illegitimate" Government. But each time, it's moved away from it back to the center. It all depends on who is defining it. Some would say that we are dangerously close to one right now. But I wouldn't. But I do see the makings of one there. But I also see the relief valves put into place by those crafty old Gentlemen that prevents one group from ever seizing control for very long.

By the same token, in the 19th and 20th century, I have seen safety valves put into place that further keep the total takeover of any one group of our Federal Government while keeping the United States protected from outside military invasions. The Federal Republic at all levels work if we work to make it work. So you can sleep well tonight. No one is going to seize control of our Government and our Military and turn it into a Kingdom. While that makes a good fictional book, it's not real.

To those who care to look the USA is now very reminiscent of Russia under the control of the Bureaus in the 1600's.

Yes, the Czar was the king, but the power was the bureaucracies. What they wanted to happen did.

This coup attempt by the swamp is a perfect continuation of the Russian experience that eventually led to revolution.

I guess the"Swamp" as you call them, are getting tired of their children being murdered in the schools and assemblies. How dare they. Everyone should be willing to just take their chances getting a chicken fried steak at a choak and puke. Afterall, this is the America you want, right? We can do better without rounding up all the guns through a lot of methods you scoff at.

Besides, this isn't Russia in 1600 or even the British Colonies in 1773. This isn't any of those. Something strange happened in 1789 that made America different and it's been different ever since. And it's been even more different every day since that day as well. We have grown way past those fears and phobias that brought us the 2nd amendment and only need to keep it in mind when making today's laws, doctrines and policies. It's now a base, it's not the absolute.

Learn from the last 50 years. And stop blaming someone else for your stupid problems and fears. They are yours, you own them, claim them as your own like I do my own.

Lol
Stop blaming firearms for violence… They have nothing to do with it.
You need to quit listening to the main stream media and watching Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types

LOL, am I making you mad? I hope so. Am I making you clean that weapon you have even harder? Polish, rub, polish.

 

[Rustic]

Nice screed, the Walker Colt was 13 years before the Civil War. By the time of the Civil War the two main handguns were the 1851 Navy, and the 1860 Army model.

None of which matters a hill of beans.

The Founders wanted the PEOPLE to be able to overthrow the illigitimate government that the Founders knew would come.

That's why they wrote the 2nd in such a simple way.

Even with the paranoid thoughts, they wrote into the government the way to have a complete revolution every 2 to 4 years and it's been that way ever since. The United States has had a few times the Government has bordered on an "Illegitimate" Government. But each time, it's moved away from it back to the center. It all depends on who is defining it. Some would say that we are dangerously close to one right now. But I wouldn't. But I do see the makings of one there. But I also see the relief valves put into place by those crafty old Gentlemen that prevents one group from ever seizing control for very long.

By the same token, in the 19th and 20th century, I have seen safety valves put into place that further keep the total takeover of any one group of our Federal Government while keeping the United States protected from outside military invasions. The Federal Republic at all levels work if we work to make it work. So you can sleep well tonight. No one is going to seize control of our Government and our Military and turn it into a Kingdom. While that makes a good fictional book, it's not real.

To those who care to look the USA is now very reminiscent of Russia under the control of the Bureaus in the 1600's.

Yes, the Czar was the king, but the power was the bureaucracies. What they wanted to happen did.

This coup attempt by the swamp is a perfect continuation of the Russian experience that eventually led to revolution.

I guess the"Swamp" as you call them, are getting tired of their children being murdered in the schools and assemblies. How dare they. Everyone should be willing to just take their chances getting a chicken fried steak at a choak and puke. Afterall, this is the America you want, right? We can do better without rounding up all the guns through a lot of methods you scoff at.

Besides, this isn't Russia in 1600 or even the British Colonies in 1773. This isn't any of those. Something strange happened in 1789 that made America different and it's been different ever since. And it's been even more different every day since that day as well. We have grown way past those fears and phobias that brought us the 2nd amendment and only need to keep it in mind when making today's laws, doctrines and policies. It's now a base, it's not the absolute.

Learn from the last 50 years. And stop blaming someone else for your stupid problems and fears. They are yours, you own them, claim them as your own like I do my own.

Lol
Stop blaming firearms for violence… They have nothing to do with it.
You need to quit listening to the main stream media and watching Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types

LOL, am I making you mad? I hope so. Am I making you clean that weapon you have even harder? Polish, rub, polish.

Lol
People kill people not firearms...
Criminal control not gun control.

 

[Brain357]

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Lol
Your forgetting, ARs and the like are used in an Insignificant amount violence... we have much bigger fish to fry...

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

What was used in our worst mass shooting? Second worst?

Second worst, two pistols at Virginia Tech 32 .....worst, a rifle 58.

Nice, France, rental truck 86, with 435 injured.

Japan, 33 killed with fire.

You forgot Orlando?

 

[Brain357]

Lol
Your forgetting, ARs and the like are used in an Insignificant amount violence... we have much bigger fish to fry...

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

If any of thes epeople could magically stop mass shootings there would be no effect on the national murder rate whatsoever

Our homicide rate is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. Lots of lives to be saved.

Wrong, that's like saying everyone who eats carrots dies........

We have higher murder rates of all types because our welfare system destroyed our inner city families in the 70s and 80s...Europe fell behind because of the war...

How do I know....? Because in the 1990s, more Americans began to buy and own guns...and our gun murder rate went down 49%, the exact opposite of what you anti-gun extremists said would happen.

You mean it went down right when we got background checks. WI got concealed carry and crime has increased every year since...

 

[Brain357]

Anyone notice countries with strong gun control don’t have school shootings or cop killings or accidental shootings or mass shootings? And their homicide rate is a fraction of ours.

 

[Brain357]

Countries with strong gun control don’t regularly have stories like this.

Family gripped with grief over shooting death of toddler: 'It was an accident'

 

[2aguy]

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

If any of thes epeople could magically stop mass shootings there would be no effect on the national murder rate whatsoever

Our homicide rate is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. Lots of lives to be saved.

Wrong, that's like saying everyone who eats carrots dies........

We have higher murder rates of all types because our welfare system destroyed our inner city families in the 70s and 80s...Europe fell behind because of the war...

How do I know....? Because in the 1990s, more Americans began to buy and own guns...and our gun murder rate went down 49%, the exact opposite of what you anti-gun extremists said would happen.

You mean it went down right when we got background checks. WI got concealed carry and crime has increased every year since...

And since criminals use straw buyers, who can pass any background check, your lame attempt at ignoring the truth that normal people who own guns don't increase the gun crime rate is noted and expected.......

Your entire argument....more guns = more gun crime.....is wrong, and can't explain how the U.S. experienced a 49% decrease in gun murder and a 75% decrease in gun crime as more Americans over the last 26 years bought, owned and carried guns....

 

[2aguy]

Anyone notice countries with strong gun control don’t have school shootings or cop killings or accidental shootings or mass shootings? And their homicide rate is a fraction of ours.

Britain had one every 10 years before they banned guns.....and had 4 attempted after...that is an increase....and their gun control laws didn't stop those attacks, dumb luck did.

Britain...another example of your theory not working......Britain has always had low gun murder even when they allowed guns....they banned guns....and their gun crime rate didn't change...after it spiked for 10 years.......so less guns did not equal less gun crime......it stayed the same..

In Science...when the opposite of your theory happens, and when nothing changes when your theory predicts change.....that means your theory is horse shit.

 

[2aguy]

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

If any of thes epeople could magically stop mass shootings there would be no effect on the national murder rate whatsoever

Our homicide rate is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. Lots of lives to be saved.

Wrong, that's like saying everyone who eats carrots dies........

We have higher murder rates of all types because our welfare system destroyed our inner city families in the 70s and 80s...Europe fell behind because of the war...

How do I know....? Because in the 1990s, more Americans began to buy and own guns...and our gun murder rate went down 49%, the exact opposite of what you anti-gun extremists said would happen.

You mean it went down right when we got background checks. WI got concealed carry and crime has increased every year since...

And you lied...you didn't even put any effort into that lie...you just pulled it out of your ass......

No homicides in Green Bay in 2017 contributes to 10 percent drop in crime

GREEN BAY, Wis. (WFRV) - The Green Bay Police Department reports crime in the city dropped significantly last year - compared to the year before. Local 5's Kris Schuller has more on the numbers and reaction from residents who feel very safe living in Northeast Wisconsin.

If there's trouble within the Wilder Park neighborhood - Neighborhood Association President Scott Vanidestine says he can contact police and they'll respond quickly.

“They know the neighborhoods, they know what's going on. They take care of us out there,” said Vanidestine.

And based on just released uniform crime report numbers for the city of Green Bay for 2017 - the police department does a good job of taking care of the entire community.

“A 9.77 percent decrease in total crime in Green Bay is just fantastic, that's a number any chief across the country would be happy to have for crime numbers in their city,” said Police Chief Andrew Smith.

For violent crime robbery was down nearly 10 percent, rape nearly four and as for homicides, we'll there weren't any.

“We haven't done that since 1981 in Green Bay, so that's a terrific number for us as well,” said Smith.

Property crimes also saw significant reductions with burglary down 28 percent and theft down eight percent. Combined total crime in 2017 was down almost 10 percent when compared to 2016.
=========

MPD: Homicides down two years in a row

MILWAUKEE - The number of homicides in Milwaukee has decreased over the last two years, according to data from the Milwaukee Police Department.

According to the MPD, there were 119 homicides in 2017, down from 142 in 2016. In 2015 there were 147 homicides.
=================

Green bay...


http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Bucking-national-trend-violent-crime-down-in-the-Green-Bay-area-448715923.html


In Green Bay, those type of crimes are down in the last year. They're down 13 percent over the past six years.
Even property crimes are decreasing. Police credit the community for driving these numbers down.
===================

As another violent year ends, memories of homicide victims live on

Milwaukee's per capita homicide rate was 23.7 per 100,000 residents — a lower rate than the 26.27 per 100,000 residents in 1991.


“You’re seeing a rebirth:” Crime rates in Milwaukee’s Amani neighborhood down significantly

The data shows crime in 2016 compared with 2015 was down in the Amani neighborhood by 10.42%. For the city as a whole, the decline was 4.66%.

---

Over the past four years: crime in the Amani neighborhood declined 26.36% -- for the city: 10.86%.
5 years of concealed carry: Law obscures impact

 

[2aguy]

Countries with strong gun control don’t regularly have stories like this.

Family gripped with grief over shooting death of toddler: 'It was an accident'

Yes they do.....they murder their children too.......

And more children are killed in car accidents than gun accidents...so I guess that means we have to ban cars....and pools.......

 

[2aguy]

Thank God for Second Amendment remedies

A woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, police say, but shot her husband instead - CNN

Nicholas Cole is in intensive care after being shot in the head during a road rage incident Saturday.

Unfortunately, police say it was his wife, Erica, who accidentally shot him.
According to the Cullman County Sheriff's Office, there was a road rage episode on Highway 69 in Dodge City, Alabama, about 6:45 p.m. Saturday. It carried over to a home on County Road 160 in Bremen.

During the incident, an altercation occurred in which, the offender, Erica Cole, attempted to shoot a second party but shot her husband, Nicholas Cole, striking him in the head," Cullman County Deputy Brad Williams said in a statement.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

Are you saying that the CDC has an imagination?

You think the cdc made up that 1.1 number? Now that is funny.

I am saying that the number 1.1 million isn't just the Defensive Sillyvillian shootings. I have seen that report and those numbers come from all sources including military and police shootings across the globe. But if you read Klecks report he inflates them further to 2.3 million. What the real number is, no one really knows. The Law Enforcements aren't releasing that number (actually, they have no way of really knowing) and CDC got out of that business because of people like Kleck trying to use their data to prove something it didn't say. Now, if you can present the "So Called" CDC report that states that there were 1.1 million defensive Civilian Shooting preventions then do so. But don't use anything based on Kleck which everything that's been presented to day refers right back to kleck.

You are a moron.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

 

[2aguy]

Thank God for Second Amendment remedies

A woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, police say, but shot her husband instead - CNN

Nicholas Cole is in intensive care after being shot in the head during a road rage incident Saturday.

Unfortunately, police say it was his wife, Erica, who accidentally shot him.
According to the Cullman County Sheriff's Office, there was a road rage episode on Highway 69 in Dodge City, Alabama, about 6:45 p.m. Saturday. It carried over to a home on County Road 160 in Bremen.

During the incident, an altercation occurred in which, the offender, Erica Cole, attempted to shoot a second party but shot her husband, Nicholas Cole, striking him in the head," Cullman County Deputy Brad Williams said in a statement.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

Are you saying that the CDC has an imagination?

You think the cdc made up that 1.1 number? Now that is funny.

I am saying that the number 1.1 million isn't just the Defensive Sillyvillian shootings. I have seen that report and those numbers come from all sources including military and police shootings across the globe. But if you read Klecks report he inflates them further to 2.3 million. What the real number is, no one really knows. The Law Enforcements aren't releasing that number (actually, they have no way of really knowing) and CDC got out of that business because of people like Kleck trying to use their data to prove something it didn't say. Now, if you can present the "So Called" CDC report that states that there were 1.1 million defensive Civilian Shooting preventions then do so. But don't use anything based on Kleck which everything that's been presented to day refers right back to kleck.

Moron...

What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses? by Gary Kleck :: SSRN



Abstract
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to seven states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Data pertaining to the same sets of states from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995) allow these results to be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole. CDC’s survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

=========



Reason article on the revised paper..



A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use



-------



Original version before he went back to revise it...

The actual paper by Kleck revealing the CDC hiding data..



SSRN Electronic Library

The timing of CDC’s addition of a DGU question to the BRFSS is of some interest. Prior to 1996, the BRFSS had never included a question about DGU. Kleck and Gertz (1995) conducted their survey in February through April 1993, presented their estimate that there were over 2 million DGUs in 1992 at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology in November 1994, and published it in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in the Fall of 1995. CDC added a DGU question to the BRFSS the very first year they could do so after that 1995 publication, in the 1996 edition. CDC was not the only federal agency during the Clinton administration to field a survey addressing the prevalence of DGU at that particular time. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) financed a national survey devoting even more detailed attention to estimating DGU prevalence, which was fielded in November and December 1994, just months after preliminary results of the 1993 Kleck/Gertz survey became known. Neither CDC nor NIJ had ever financed research into DGU before 1996. Perhaps there was just “something in the air” that motivated the two agencies to suddenly decide in 1994 to address the topic. Another interpretation, however, is that fielding of the surveys was triggered by the Kleck/Gertz findings that DGU was common, and that these agencies hoped to obtain lower DGU prevalence estimates than those obtained by Kleck/Gertz. Low estimates would have implied fewer beneficial uses of firearms, results that would have been far more congenial to the strongly pro-control positions of the Clinton administration.

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns



Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Those polls, Kleck writes,

are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).

Kleck was impressed with how well the survey worded its question: "During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?" Respondents were told to leave out incidents from occupations, like policing, where using firearms is part of the job. Kleck is impressed with how the question excludes animals but includes DGUs outside the home as well as within it.

Kleck is less impressed with the fact that the question was only asked of people who admitted to owning guns in their home earlier in the survey, and that they asked no follow-up questions regarding the specific nature of the DGU incident.

From Kleck's own surveys, he found that only 79 percent of those who reported a DGU "had also reported a gun in their household at the time of the interview," so he thinks whatever numbers the CDC found need to be revised upward to account for that. (Kleck speculates that CDC showed a sudden interest in the question of DGUs starting in 1996 because Kleck's own famous/notorious survey had been published in 1995.)

At any rate, Kleck downloaded the datasets for those three years and found that the "weighted percent who reported a DGU...was 1.3% in 1996, 0.9% in 1997, 1.0% in 1998, and 1.07% in all three surveys combined."





Kleck figures if you do the adjustment upward he thinks necessary for those who had DGU incidents without personally owning a gun in the home at the time of the survey, and then the adjustment downward he thinks necessary because CDC didn't do detailed follow-ups to confirm the nature of the incident, you get 1.24 percent, a close match to his own 1.326 percent figure.

He concludes that the small difference between his estimate and the CDC's "can be attributed to declining rates of violent crime, which accounts for most DGUs. With fewer occasions for self-defense in the form of violent victimizations, one would expect fewer DGUs."

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense.



This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

 

[Blues Man]

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Lol
Your forgetting, ARs and the like are used in an Insignificant amount violence... we have much bigger fish to fry...

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

If any of thes epeople could magically stop mass shootings there would be no effect on the national murder rate whatsoever

Our homicide rate is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. Lots of lives to be saved.

I don't care.

Taking guns away from people who will never commit murder does nothing to lower the murder rate

 

[2aguy]

Thank God for Second Amendment remedies

A woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, police say, but shot her husband instead - CNN

Nicholas Cole is in intensive care after being shot in the head during a road rage incident Saturday.

Unfortunately, police say it was his wife, Erica, who accidentally shot him.
According to the Cullman County Sheriff's Office, there was a road rage episode on Highway 69 in Dodge City, Alabama, about 6:45 p.m. Saturday. It carried over to a home on County Road 160 in Bremen.

During the incident, an altercation occurred in which, the offender, Erica Cole, attempted to shoot a second party but shot her husband, Nicholas Cole, striking him in the head," Cullman County Deputy Brad Williams said in a statement.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

Are you saying that the CDC has an imagination?

You think the cdc made up that 1.1 number? Now that is funny.

I am saying that the number 1.1 million isn't just the Defensive Sillyvillian shootings. I have seen that report and those numbers come from all sources including military and police shootings across the globe. But if you read Klecks report he inflates them further to 2.3 million. What the real number is, no one really knows. The Law Enforcements aren't releasing that number (actually, they have no way of really knowing) and CDC got out of that business because of people like Kleck trying to use their data to prove something it didn't say. Now, if you can present the "So Called" CDC report that states that there were 1.1 million defensive Civilian Shooting preventions then do so. But don't use anything based on Kleck which everything that's been presented to day refers right back to kleck.

Moron......The CDC kept doing gun research and was never stopped from doing research....you pull this B.S. out of your ass and sit there thinking you revealed something profound....here on the CDC research on gun self defense....notice the question they used told respondents not to count professional gun use....you know.....like the military and police...you twit...

CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Surveys The BRFSS surveys are high-quality telephone surveys of very large probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Even just the subset of four to seven state surveys that asked about DGU in 1996-1998 interviewed 3,197-4,500 adults, depending on the year. This is more people than were asked about this topic in any other surveys, other than the National Self-Defense Survey conducted in 1993 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), who asked DGU questions of 4,977 people. Sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001b).


The wording of the DGU question in the BRFSS surveys was also excellent, avoiding many problems with the wording that afflicted the DGU questions used in other surveys. The exact wording was: “During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?”

Respondents (Rs) had previously been instructed not to report firearm uses associated with an occupation that “requires and authorizes you to use a firearm.”


Thus, the question excluded uses by military, police and others with firearm-related jobs.

Further, the question appropriately excluded uses against animals (“…another person…”), asked about a specific, recent recall period (“…during the last 12 months…”), covered uses by any type of firearm (not just handguns), covered uses regardless of where they occurred (not just uses in the home), and explicitly told respondents that they should report uses even if they did not fire a gun. In sum,

------

These three DGU counts average 1,138,534 per year for the period 1996-1998. This puts the CDC results squarely within the range of DGU estimates typically produced by the many private surveys (Kleck 2001b). This figure, however, is 18 times larger than the number of DGUs supposedly implied by the NCVS (McDowall and Wiersema 1994). Thus, even other federal government surveys indicate that the NCVS “estimate” of DGU prevalence is grossly inaccurate.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Even with the paranoid thoughts, they wrote into the government the way to have a complete revolution every 2 to 4 years and it's been that way ever since. The United States has had a few times the Government has bordered on an "Illegitimate" Government. But each time, it's moved away from it back to the center. It all depends on who is defining it. Some would say that we are dangerously close to one right now. But I wouldn't. But I do see the makings of one there. But I also see the relief valves put into place by those crafty old Gentlemen that prevents one group from ever seizing control for very long.

By the same token, in the 19th and 20th century, I have seen safety valves put into place that further keep the total takeover of any one group of our Federal Government while keeping the United States protected from outside military invasions. The Federal Republic at all levels work if we work to make it work. So you can sleep well tonight. No one is going to seize control of our Government and our Military and turn it into a Kingdom. While that makes a good fictional book, it's not real.

To those who care to look the USA is now very reminiscent of Russia under the control of the Bureaus in the 1600's.

Yes, the Czar was the king, but the power was the bureaucracies. What they wanted to happen did.

This coup attempt by the swamp is a perfect continuation of the Russian experience that eventually led to revolution.

I guess the"Swamp" as you call them, are getting tired of their children being murdered in the schools and assemblies. How dare they. Everyone should be willing to just take their chances getting a chicken fried steak at a choak and puke. Afterall, this is the America you want, right? We can do better without rounding up all the guns through a lot of methods you scoff at.

Besides, this isn't Russia in 1600 or even the British Colonies in 1773. This isn't any of those. Something strange happened in 1789 that made America different and it's been different ever since. And it's been even more different every day since that day as well. We have grown way past those fears and phobias that brought us the 2nd amendment and only need to keep it in mind when making today's laws, doctrines and policies. It's now a base, it's not the absolute.

Learn from the last 50 years. And stop blaming someone else for your stupid problems and fears. They are yours, you own them, claim them as your own like I do my own.

Lol
Stop blaming firearms for violence… They have nothing to do with it.
You need to quit listening to the main stream media and watching Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types

LOL, am I making you mad? I hope so. Am I making you clean that weapon you have even harder? Polish, rub, polish.

Lol
People kill people not firearms...
Criminal control not gun control.

And since when do we have complete control over all criminals? But we do have some control over the tools they use.

 

[Ernie S.]

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

Are you saying that the CDC has an imagination?

You think the cdc made up that 1.1 number? Now that is funny.

They actually did CDC level research to find that number.....isn't that what you asshats keep demanding....more CDC research? Until it proves the opposite of what you want to find...right?

You are still making that false claim? You love being dishonest.

You still claim your opinion is more valid than actual facts? Even facts collected by a government agency during the obama administration? I still appreciate the irony in your screen name. Don't ever change!