1 1
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

But none of your plans are compatible with the 2nd Amendment that you refuse to contemplate changing.

That's incorrect. Read it again. 

2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

That would seem to be a direct result of the 2nd. Make up your mind, which do you want more, the 2nd or safety for your daughter?

We can have both. 

I'm beginning to think you're being more obstinate for another reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BIGUN said:

That's incorrect. Read it again. 

We can have both. 

I'm beginning to think you're being more obstinate for another reason. 

We would seem to both be pretty obstinate. My reason is my belief that the 2nd amendment is lunacy. Your reason is your belief that it is something that America needs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

We would seem to both be pretty obstinate.

Both guilty. 

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

My reason is my belief that the 2nd amendment is lunacy.

And, as a Canadian, I can understand your opinion - not agree, but understand. 

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Your reason is your belief that it is something that America needs. 

I do vehemently believe in the Bill of Rights. Uncompromising, in its entirety and as a whole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

We would seem to both be pretty obstinate. My reason is my belief that the 2nd amendment is lunacy. Your reason is your belief that it is something that America needs. 

That I agree with. But the thing is that Keith is simply recognizing that here in America we have the second amendment as interpreted by our Supreme Court. No solution is worth talking about if it lay's outside the confines of that reality. I, for one, think the whole gun craze in America, is simply ridiculous especially this nonsense with AR-15's and safety less hand guns like Glocks. But I am not ready to give up my guns. I don't think my shotguns are a danger to much more than woodpeckers and gophers. Also, I like the idea of a home defense shotgun. I believe if the fringes on both sides would just accept some common sense changes that recognize it's not an all or nothing proposition we can get to a better place. Beating the same drum won't help.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2019 Stats

38,355 gun deaths, 23,941 suicides, 14,414 homicides

There were 434 mass shootings resulting is 517 deaths and 1,643 injuries in 2019. In this stat the definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more shot in one incidence. The vast majority of these were people shooting people they know or were in an argument/fight with. List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 - Wikipedia

Note that CA had 43 and IL had 40 (19% of the total events) - both of those states have strong gun control laws. Texas had 41 and has no gun control laws. South Carolina had 9 and we have a ton of guns and no gun control but only 5 million people. If this data was normalized based off total population it would help. Population: CA 39 million, IL 13 million, TX 29 million, SC 5 mill. So events per million: CA 1.10, IL 3.08, TX 1.41, and SC 1.80. Not enough data for a pattern but it is interesting. Someone else is welcome to complete the stats.

Suicides - some may have not occurred without the availability of a gun, same for homicides

56% want more gun control, 35% want no changes, and 9% want less control. It would be interesting to know where the people are located and their opinion. Wondering if dense cities want more and rural areas want same or less. The demographics could tell us a lot.

9 states ban assault weapons, 1 state regulates. What is an assault weapon?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That I agree with. But the thing is that Keith is simply recognizing that here in America we have the second amendment as interpreted by our Supreme Court. No solution is worth talking about if it lay's outside the confines of that reality. I, for one, think the whole gun craze in America, is simply ridiculous especially this nonsense with AR-15's and safety less hand guns like Glocks. But I am not ready to give up my guns. I don't think my shotguns are a danger to much more than woodpeckers and gophers. Also, I like the idea of a home defense shotgun. I believe if the fringes on both sides would just accept some common sense changes that recognize it's not an all or nothing proposition we can get to a better place. Beating the same drum won't help.

Some days you make it hard not to love you. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

But I am not ready to give up my guns. I don't think my shotguns are a danger to much more than woodpeckers and gophers. Also, I like the idea of a home defense shotgun.

We have all that and more in Canada. The emotion around the 2nd makes it seem like it is an all or nothing thing. Either you have the 2nd or the g-men swoop in and take away all the guns. Bollocks I say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

You're right, you have contributed additional information, but after a few pages the link to the thought process gets eaten by the Internet. I think that not unlike drivers not having insurance, we can reduce the number of criminals who have guns without shitting on the 2nd amendment. 

When Biden says, "The 2nd amendment is not an absolute;" I cringe. 

Hi Keith,

Why?  To me, it is also 'not an absolute.'  

This means, to me, that the SCOTUS can revise any of their previous interpretations. 

This is actually done more than most of us notice.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

We have all that and more in Canada. The emotion around the 2nd makes it seem like it is an all or nothing thing. Either you have the 2nd or the g-men swoop in and take away all the guns. Bollocks I say!

Hi Ken,

I started driving a car in 1955.  I have never known anyone to lose their Driver's License when it was inappropriate.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  That includes me.

Edited by JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, kallend said:

Did you cringe when Scalia wrote much the same thing in the Heller decision?

?     

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution,” Scalia concluded. “The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Why?  To me, it is also 'not an absolute.'  

This means, to me, that the SCOTUS can revise any of their previous interpretations. 

Jerry,

Revising interpretations (regulating) is different than doing away with the 2nd - which is what I believe Biden is saying. If he means less than that; I'd ask him to be more specific. In Heller, the issue was a complete ban on owning handgun weapons. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. But, after that - it was like everyone just dropped a hot potato on regulation. Hence, my continuous point on "Well-Regulated." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are 2019 statistics using 2020 population data. For the purposes of this report a mass shooting is an incident where four or more people are shot. I didn't insert any data on states that may or may not have some form of gun control other than what is done with assault weapons. 

There doesn't appear to be any corollary between assault weapons bans or regulation, and the number of incidents or deaths. An interesting note is that in a "mass" shooting one has a 77% chance of survival if shot.

No shootings are good. The media focuses on the sensational mass shootings and tends to ignore the (unfortunately) common street fights, drive by shootings, bar arguments and domestic violence where guns are used, quite often among people that know each other. The attached file provides detail on each shooting and a hyper link to the story. One could read all of them and develop the stats on race and age groups.

For example this is a screen shot of the 9 incidents in SC.

image.png.f9ccfbf713f8d7c2a39e9ed60f1213cf.png

If someone wants to look at more detail or add to the EXCEL file, it's attached. 

 

State # of Incidents Dead Injured Total Population (thousands) Incidents / million people % Deaths of total shot Assault Weapons status
Alabama 12 17 50 67           4,921 2.44 25%  
Alaska 0 0 0 0              731 0.00    
Arizona 5 6 23 29           7,421 0.67 21%  
Arkansas 5 7 15 22           3,030 1.65 32%  
California 44 52 186 238         39,368 1.12 22% banned
Colorado 4 2 20 22           5,807 0.69 9%  
Connecticut 3 0 13 13           3,557 0.84 0% banned
Delaware 2 0 10 10              987 2.03 0%  
Florida 20 34 62 96         21,733 0.92 35%  
Georgia 19 18 70 88         10,710 1.77 20%  
Hawaii 1 3 1 4           1,407 0.71 75% banned
Idaho 0 0 0 0           1,827 0.00    
Illinois 41 37 172 209         12,588 3.26 18%  
Indiana 12 9 55 64           6,755 1.78 14%  
Iowa 4 7 11 18           3,164 1.26 39%  
Kansas 5 5 20 25           2,914 1.72 20%  
Kentucky 5 6 18 24           4,477 1.12 25%  
Louisiana 23 27 85 112           4,645 4.95 24%  
Maine 0 0 0 0           1,350 0.00    
Maryland 21 15 82 97           6,056 3.47 15% banned
Massachusetts 4 7 12 19           6,893 0.58 37% banned
Michigan 12 13 41 54           9,967 1.20 24%  
Minnesota 1 0 5 5           5,657 0.18 0% regulated
Mississippi 8 9 29 38           2,967 2.70 24%  
Missouri 15 12 53 65           6,152 2.44 18%  
Montana 2 5 4 9           1,081 1.85 56%  
Nevada 3 1 12 13           3,138 0.96 8%  
New Hampshire 0 0 0 0           1,366 0.00    
New Jersey 14 13 62 75           8,882 1.58 17% banned
New Mexico 5 8 17 25           2,103 2.38 32%  
New York 9 7 44 51         19,337 0.47 14% banned
North Carolina 15 21 47 68         10,601 1.41 31%  
Ohio 16 20 79 99         11,693 1.37 20%  
Oklahoma 8 11 22 33           3,981 2.01 33%  
Oregon 1 0 5 5           4,241 0.24 0%  
Pennsylvania 18 9 86 95         12,783 1.41 9%  
Puerto Rico 1 8 0 8           3,189 0.31 100%  
Rhode Island 1 2 2 4           1,057 0.95 50%  
South Carolina 9 10 39 49           5,218 1.72 20%  
South Dakota 0 0 0 0              893 0.00    
Tennessee 7 3 33 36           6,887 1.02 8%  
Texas 40 90 165 255         29,361 1.36 35%  
Utah 0 0 0 0           3,250 0.00    
Virginia 11 22 44 66           8,591 1.28 33% regulated
Washington 3 7 7 14           7,694 0.39 50%  
Washington, D.C. 7 2 30 32              713 9.82 6% banned
West Virginia 1 1 5 6           1,785 0.56 17%  
Wisconsin 3 6 9 15           5,833 0.51 40%  
Wyoming 1 2 2 4              582 1.72 50%  
                 
Totals          441      534     1,747    2,281       329,343 1.34 23%  

Gun data, 4-21-21.xlsx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Jerry,

Revising interpretations (regulating) is different than doing away with the 2nd -

4 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Jerry,

Revising interpretations (regulating) is different than doing away with the 2nd - which is what I believe Biden is saying. If he means less than that; I'd ask him to be more specific. In Heller, the issue was a complete ban on owning handgun weapons. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. But, after that - it was like everyone just dropped a hot potato on regulation. Hence, my continuous point on "Well-Regulated." 

. If he means less than that; I'd ask him to be more specific. In Heller, the issue was a complete ban on owning handgun weapons. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. But, after that - it was like everyone just dropped a hot potato on regulation. Hence, my continuous point on "Well-Regulated." 

Hi Keith,

Re:  which is what I believe Biden is saying

I try to never say what the other person is saying.  However, on this I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

However, on this I think we will have to agree to disagree.

If you're saying we should do away with the 2nd, then yes, we disagree. If you're saying can better regulate the 2nd, then we're agreeing. Even if we disagree, I still hope to have a beer with you this year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

If you're saying we should do away with the 2nd, then yes, we disagree. If you're saying can better regulate the 2nd, then we're agreeing. Even if we disagree, I still hope to have a beer with you this year. 

Hi Keith,

Re:  If you're saying can better regulate the 2nd, then we're agreeing.

I do not believe that I have ever advocated taking guns away from everyone.

Re:   I still hope to have a beer with you this year. 

I'm not a beer drinker; but, I bet a couple of sharp cookies like you & me can figure something out.  I look forward to it.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  And, just maybe we could schedule it for when Joe Weber is visiting his home state, we could include him.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

If you're saying we should do away with the 2nd, then yes, we disagree. If you're saying can better regulate the 2nd, then we're agreeing. Even if we disagree, I still hope to have a beer with you this year. 

I would drink a beer with you anytime if I could. But I don't see how the 2nd can be "better regulated" when the whole point of it is that regulations are not permitted. You want clearly gun regulation. You clearly want to keep the 2nd intact. Those positions are not compatible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I would drink a beer with you anytime if I could. But I don't see how the 2nd can be "better regulated" when the whole point of it is that regulations are not permitted. You want clearly gun regulation. You clearly want to keep the 2nd intact. Those positions are not compatible.

Hi Ken,

Re:  But I don't see how the 2nd can be "better regulated"

It might be a case of how each of us define 'regulated.'

As you may know, I have posted that I would like to see a SCOTUS interpretation that a state can regulate any gun such that it can only hold one bullet at a time.  I believe that this is within the scope/definition of the 2nd Amendment.

But, I've been wrong before & I'll be wrong again one day.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

But I don't see how the 2nd can be "better regulated" when the whole point of it is that regulations are not permitted.

Untrue, Ken. 

From Justice Scalia in Heller v. DC in post #338:

Scalia concluded. “The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” 

He explains those positions ARE compatible. Beers on me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Untrue, Ken. 

From Justice Scalia in Heller v. DC in post #338:

Scalia concluded. “The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” 

He explains those positions ARE compatible. Beers on me. 

Or, in other words, the right is NOT absolute.  Just like Biden said.

Scalia's actual words were "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." (Section 2 of the holding).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, kallend said:

Or, in other words, the right is NOT absolute.  Just like Biden said.

Scalia's actual words were "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." (Section 2 of the holding).

Just like most Americans Scalia wants to have it both ways. Sure, the right is not unlimited. But in anyway that matters enough to make a difference, it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kallend said:

Or, in other words, the right is NOT absolute.  Just like Biden said.

Scalia's actual words were "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." (Section 2 of the holding).

Alright. I get where you're coming from. You can have some fajitas.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1