Repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yet they don't seem to be against cars and look how many deaths they have caused.

You cannot take my car from me. I use it to protect my family. I'm ready to run over any evil-doer who plans on invading my home and hurting my family.

That's why I got the car in the first place. And you can take it from my cold dead hands.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That's what leftists get off over. Notice they never try to fix the school murders!

Would you characterize the Right as being anti-gun?

No, you guys want to "fix school murders" by mandating locked doors. Or arming 3rd grade teachers after you all just watched HIGHLY TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE BEEN TRAINED FOR YEARS ON ACTIVE SHOOTERS sit by rather than engaging the gunman because that would be dangerous.

What chance do you HONESTLY think a third grade teacher would have when the POLICE are unable to address the situation?

Go to a university and visit the elementary school education classes to see the teachers. These are NOT usually the people who spend their freetime target practicing with human-shaped targets.

 

[Abatis]

“Most linguists and historians agreed with Stevens’s interpretation, emphasizing that the phrase “bear arms” in 1791 was used most often in a collective, military sense.” ibid

And Stevens and the cunning linguists would be wrong. SCOTUS has been clear and definitive that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. Of what import and significance do words -- upon which the right to arms does not depend -- have of the recognition, exercise and protection of the right?

The premise of the right being conditioned upon and/or qualified by the militia connotation of "bear arms" also fails because of SCOTUS precedent. In saying the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution, the Court is declaring that arguing the right is qualified by or conditioned upon a citizen's attachment or enrollment in a structure (the organized militia) that is created by the Constitution and is entirely dependent itself on the Constitution for its existence, is preposterous.

And, also in theory, it’s possible that a future Supreme Court could overturn Heller, abandoning the individual right interpretation and restoring the collective right interpretation.

How???? The "militia right interpretation" was never a position held by the Supreme Court, it was entirely a diversion emanating from and contained within, the lower federal courts.

There is no Supreme Court "militia right" holding or precedent to claw back and reassert.

The "militia right" theory did exist in the southern states, to facilitate and justify their racist discriminatory policies. Since Blacks were barred from serving in the militia, (by federal militia law), southern states declared their state constitution's RKBA to only be recognized for Whites. That's the provenance of the theory you embrace . . .

The entire "militia right" theory (in the federal system) is a mirage, there is nothing there. It was resurrected from its racist roots and inserted in the federal system in 1942 for the singular purpose of justifying ignoring SCOTUS in Miller.

The four Heller liberal dissenting Justices, by confirming the individual right has always been the interpretation represented in SCOTUS precedent, and that the individual right was the only interpretation represented in the three Heller opinions, (majority and two dissents), has forever closed the door on your fantasy.

.

 

[2aguy]

I've only ever seen studies that say that guns in the home are more of a danger to the owners. But, again, that's not necessarily true for EVERY home with guns. But it certainly explains America's off-the-charts level of gun homicide rates.



Well, in America no one is guaranteed freedom from THAT. Some women have to endure even worse just going to Planned Parenthood offices.



But it's the problem. The problem is too many Americans have this image of themselves as John Wayne and they are 100% sure they will be flawless in their assessment of the situation in the street and will be able to do what a man's gotta do.

Unfortunately even police officers say in an active shooter situation a "good guy with a gun" is more of an impediment and may even be shot by the police since they don't know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy (lacking black cowboy hats and all).

My point isn't meant to be totally facetious. I am serious that I fear that 99% of the people who talk so big about how they are ready to defend themselves in the worst of situations will, in fact, turn out to make the situation far more worse. There's almost no study that finds the "good guy with a gun" scenario as anything more than an occasional case. It just doesn't happen much. Certainly not at the rate of American gun ownership rates.

If the "Good guy with a gun" scenario were true this country would be the safest place on earth. But we are not.

Wrong….guns in the home don’t explain the homicide rate…..the policies of left wing politicians, judges and prosecutors have increased out gun crime rate which was going down for 27 years before the democrats launched their war on police, and their desire to release the most violent and dangerous criminals......



You have to explain this......and you can't......

Over 27 years, from 1993 to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019 (in 2020 that number is 21.52 million)...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........

 

[2aguy]

Would you characterize the Right as being anti-gun?

No, you guys want to "fix school murders" by mandating locked doors. Or arming 3rd grade teachers after you all just watched HIGHLY TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE BEEN TRAINED FOR YEARS ON ACTIVE SHOOTERS sit by rather than engaging the gunman because that would be dangerous.

What chance do you HONESTLY think a third grade teacher would have when the POLICE are unable to address the situation?

Go to a university and visit the elementary school education classes to see the teachers. These are NOT usually the people who spend their freetime target practicing with human-shaped targets.

And we just had a woman this week....the same week as the school shooting..... with a concealed carry permit...not a police officer, not a Navy SEAL, not a SWAT team member kill a mass public shooter who had an AR-15 and she did it with her pistol......

A woman with a concealed handgun stopped a mass shooting this week after a man attacked a graduation party in Charleston, West Virginia.

"Police said a woman who was lawfully carrying a pistol shot and killed a man who began shooting at a crowd of people Wednesday night in Charleston," location Fox 11 reported about the incident. "Dennis Butler was killed after allegedly shooting at dozens of people attending a graduation party Wednesday near the Vista View Apartment complex. No injuries were reported from those at the party. Investigators said Butler was warned about speeding in the area with children present before he left. He later returned with an AR-15-style firearm and began firing into the crowd before he was shot and killed."

The Near Mass Shooting Most of the Media Won't Tell You About

townhall.com

 

[2aguy]

Would you characterize the Right as being anti-gun?

No, you guys want to "fix school murders" by mandating locked doors. Or arming 3rd grade teachers after you all just watched HIGHLY TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE BEEN TRAINED FOR YEARS ON ACTIVE SHOOTERS sit by rather than engaging the gunman because that would be dangerous.

What chance do you HONESTLY think a third grade teacher would have when the POLICE are unable to address the situation?

Go to a university and visit the elementary school education classes to see the teachers. These are NOT usually the people who spend their freetime target practicing with human-shaped targets.

You have to explain this.....

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.

BREAKING: Man Opens Fire At Oklahoma Walmart, Confronted By Armed Citizen, Report Says

Two people were killed at a Walmart in Oklahoma by a man who opened fire in the parking lot on Monday before turning the weapon on himself after an armed citizen confronted him.
------

The assailant, who has not yet been identified, shot and killed a man and a woman in the parking lot and when he was “confronted by an armed citizen, he then turned the gun on himself,” The Daily Mail reported.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lying as usual. Quit screwing around commie and come get them! And besides communist double talk, what is a good faith discussion?

That’s all we get from conservatives: dishonesty, ignorance, and stupidity – along with fearmongering and lies.

Conservatives are cowards as well, they lack to courage to engage in a good faith, fact-based discussions concerning the Second Amendment – because they know facts and the truth aren’t on their side, as usual.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home | NEJM

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

OK, do there's a strong relationship between guns in the home and the increased risk of homicide.

Got it. So far everything lines up.

3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research

Hmm, testimony before Congress from a public advocate for guns. Very loaded language here with "incredibly flawed". I'd feel much better if any of the data he presents. I have not yet found the place where Kellerman RETRACTS his study. I'd be much more interested in seeing that.

But Kellerman isn't the only to find associations.

" Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."

ACP Journals

Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

Just going to assume what is clearly a pro-gun (2Asisters.org) as a biased resource. I hope you will forgive me for preferring peer reviewed articles to 2Asisters.org citations.

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

It is not uncommon for flaws to be found in the research. That's why it's great to find other resources that ALSO find increased odds of danger to those in the home where guns are kept.

Such as this article:

"The research suggests that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, and there is no net beneficial effect of firearm ownership. "

Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature

This article reviews the most commonly cited, representative, empirical studies in the peer-reviewed literature that directly investigate the associat…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You have to explain this.....

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.

BREAKING: Man Opens Fire At Oklahoma Walmart, Confronted By Armed Citizen, Report Says

Two people were killed at a Walmart in Oklahoma by a man who opened fire in the parking lot on Monday before turning the weapon on himself after an armed citizen confronted him.
------

The assailant, who has not yet been identified, shot and killed a man and a woman in the parking lot and when he was “confronted by an armed citizen, he then turned the gun on himself,” The Daily Mail reported.

Just a pro-tip, don't run up against COPYRIGHT laws by copying entire chunks of the articles. Pick your most appropriate points.

Thanks (former IP analyst here, so I kind of alert on these things)

 

[2aguy]

OK, do there's a strong relationship between guns in the home and the increased risk of homicide.

Got it. So far everything lines up.




Hmm, testimony before Congress from a public advocate for guns. Very loaded language here with "incredibly flawed". I'd feel much better if any of the data he presents. I have not yet found the place where Kellerman RETRACTS his study. I'd be much more interested in seeing that.

But Kellerman isn't the only to find associations.

" Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."

ACP Journals

Just going to assume what is clearly a pro-gun (2Asisters.org) as a biased resource. I hope you will forgive me for preferring peer reviewed articles to 2Asisters.org citations.




It is not uncommon for flaws to be found in the research. That's why it's great to find other resources that ALSO find increased odds of danger to those in the home where guns are kept.

Such as this article:

"The research suggests that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, and there is no net beneficial effect of firearm ownership. "

Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature

This article reviews the most commonly cited, representative, empirical studies in the peer-reviewed literature that directly investigate the associat…

www.sciencedirect.com

No...there is a strong correlation between criminals living in the home, drug addicts living in the home, and alcoholics and domestic abusers living in the home...those are the problem...not the gun or the normal people who own guns...as the Kellerman study tried to hide...

 

[2aguy]

OK, do there's a strong relationship between guns in the home and the increased risk of homicide.

Got it. So far everything lines up.




Hmm, testimony before Congress from a public advocate for guns. Very loaded language here with "incredibly flawed". I'd feel much better if any of the data he presents. I have not yet found the place where Kellerman RETRACTS his study. I'd be much more interested in seeing that.

But Kellerman isn't the only to find associations.

" Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."

ACP Journals

Just going to assume what is clearly a pro-gun (2Asisters.org) as a biased resource. I hope you will forgive me for preferring peer reviewed articles to 2Asisters.org citations.




It is not uncommon for flaws to be found in the research. That's why it's great to find other resources that ALSO find increased odds of danger to those in the home where guns are kept.

Such as this article:

"The research suggests that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, and there is no net beneficial effect of firearm ownership. "

Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature

This article reviews the most commonly cited, representative, empirical studies in the peer-reviewed literature that directly investigate the associat…

www.sciencedirect.com

I posted it in that post........the 2.7 number is from the redo of his study....

 

[2aguy]

OK, do there's a strong relationship between guns in the home and the increased risk of homicide.

Got it. So far everything lines up.




Hmm, testimony before Congress from a public advocate for guns. Very loaded language here with "incredibly flawed". I'd feel much better if any of the data he presents. I have not yet found the place where Kellerman RETRACTS his study. I'd be much more interested in seeing that.

But Kellerman isn't the only to find associations.

" Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."

ACP Journals

Just going to assume what is clearly a pro-gun (2Asisters.org) as a biased resource. I hope you will forgive me for preferring peer reviewed articles to 2Asisters.org citations.




It is not uncommon for flaws to be found in the research. That's why it's great to find other resources that ALSO find increased odds of danger to those in the home where guns are kept.

Such as this article:

"The research suggests that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, and there is no net beneficial effect of firearm ownership. "

Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature

This article reviews the most commonly cited, representative, empirical studies in the peer-reviewed literature that directly investigate the associat…

www.sciencedirect.com

Yeah...didn't see them mention whether criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics or domestic abusers in the home were anywhere near the actual reason for the homicide in the home.......but that isn't helpful when you simply want to ban guns...

 

[miketx]

That’s all we get from conservatives: dishonesty, ignorance, and stupidity – along with fearmongering and lies.

Conservatives are cowards as well, they lack to courage to engage in a good faith, fact-based discussions concerning the Second Amendment – because they know facts and the truth aren’t on their side, as usual.

lol, always the same twisted lies.

 

[2aguy]

OK, do there's a strong relationship between guns in the home and the increased risk of homicide.

Got it. So far everything lines up.




Hmm, testimony before Congress from a public advocate for guns. Very loaded language here with "incredibly flawed". I'd feel much better if any of the data he presents. I have not yet found the place where Kellerman RETRACTS his study. I'd be much more interested in seeing that.

But Kellerman isn't the only to find associations.

" Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."

ACP Journals

Just going to assume what is clearly a pro-gun (2Asisters.org) as a biased resource. I hope you will forgive me for preferring peer reviewed articles to 2Asisters.org citations.




It is not uncommon for flaws to be found in the research. That's why it's great to find other resources that ALSO find increased odds of danger to those in the home where guns are kept.

Such as this article:

"The research suggests that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, and there is no net beneficial effect of firearm ownership. "

Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature

This article reviews the most commonly cited, representative, empirical studies in the peer-reviewed literature that directly investigate the associat…

www.sciencedirect.com

Yeah.......

Across states, more guns = more homicide

Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988–1997


American Journal of Public Health, December 2002, Vol 92, No. 12

Very basic control variables that they have used in other papers are not used here: No fixed effects for state and year. There is a big benefit to using so-called panel data, where you can more accurately account for differences in crime rates across states or over time. This method is called “fixed effects.” Ask any academic who deals with this type of data, and they will tell you that these are basic controls that all papers in this area account for.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/12/notes-on-the-harvard-injury-control-research-center-page-on-homicide/

 

[Abatis]

Conservatives are cowards as well, they lack to courage to engage in a good faith, fact-based discussions concerning the Second Amendment – because they know facts and the truth aren’t on their side, as usual.

By all means, let's hear your good faith, fact-based rebuttal to my post #63 above.

What you hold up to be your impenetrable scholarship, is just cut-n-paste propaganda.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No...there is a strong correlation between criminals living in the home, drug addicts living in the home, and alcoholics and domestic abusers living in the home...those are the problem...not the gun or the normal people who own guns...as the Kellerman study tried to hide...

"hide"?

You have evidence that Kellermen et al KNOWINGLY hide data?

That's a pretty big crime in science. Do you have evidence to that effect? That it wasn't just an oversight or error, but that it was HIDDEN?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I posted it in that post........the 2.7 number is from the redo of his study....

I didn't see any journal citation. I just saw the pro-gun advocate making a claim. I'll have to check back over to see if he said where the article was. I need a bit of unbiased data for this.

 

[2aguy]

"hide"?

You have evidence that Kellermen et al KNOWINGLY hide data?

That's a pretty big crime in science. Do you have evidence to that effect? That it wasn't just an oversight or error, but that it was HIDDEN?

He had the information in his study and ignored it....as the people who reviewed his work stated........then, when he redid the study, he continued to ignore the very thing that made the first study flawed....

 

[Unkotare]

Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?

...

 

[Dante Reawakened]

At least Justice Stevens, for all his constitutional taffy-pulling, finally came to the realization that to enact the gun laws he and other liberals want, the Constitution would need to be altered.

It is a bit unclear how rescinding the 2ndA would get us to that goal since the Supreme Court has been boringly consistent for going on 146 years, that the right to arms is not granted by the 2ndA, thus the RKBA in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.

Next problem, where are you going to find the 38+ states required to ratify a new federal amendment, surrendering the rights of their citizens to complete federal control?

You’re a bit confused here. The amendment protects the right — without it things change

Would USA need a new amendment? Not at all.