Slashdot Mirror

Also, pretty sure the "more likely to be killed with your own gun" myth has been debunked, or at least, proven inaccurate.

I believe the phrase "pretty sure" is a synonym for "I have no idea whatsoever." Cite data.

Google Arthur Kellermann. The bias in his publicly funded study was the reason for the Dickey Amendment, which prevents the CDC from promoting gun control. It has indeed been debunked - renting was just as much of a risk factor. You anti-gun types love to whine about that one, so maybe it's time you learned a little bit about it.

Gun laws in general are racist. I had someone tell me that one day, and I asked myself, "This guy IS full of shit, isn't he? I have to obey the same gun laws that he does, don't I?" So, I googled, "Are gun laws racist?" Holy shit, my eyes were opened. Try it yourself. The very first "gun control" laws on this continent were unabashedly aimed at preventing black people from accessing weapons. Maybe the best link is this one: https://www.firearmsandliberty...

The Kellerman study was badly and tendentiously designed.

The worst flaw: that study only counted uses of a firearm that resulted in a dead body. If some guy kicked in the front door of a home, and the woman inside pointed a gun at him and he left, then Kellerman's study would not count that as a "use" of a firearm. Because most defensive uses of a firearm do not result in the weapon being fired, let alone anyone dying, this structurally stacked the deck against defensive gun uses.

That study also lumps in suicides with homicides. I have not seen any honest study that shows that a gun in the home causes an increase in the suicide rate.

The study started with people killed by firearms, which meant there was a 100% chance of a firearm being present, but then guessed whether there was a firearm in the home of a "matching" person. We have no way of knowing how many of the "guesses" were correct, and each case where they guessed wrong would lower their result. We literally cannot put error bars on the result.

Kellerman's own data showed much higher correlations: having an adult in the home who has a previous felony conviction for a violent crime is a much better predictor of the chance of violence.

There are plenty of articles on the flaws in the Kellerman study.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

Professor Gary Kleck's research shows that firearms are used effectively for defensive purposes many times per year.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082

And I just posted links showing that the number of shootings (both accidental and intentional) has dramatically fallen at the same time that the number of firearms in the USA has dramatically risen. If the Kellerman study's conclusions were accurate, the number of shootings should have risen when the number of guns rose so much.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8501517&cid=51151345

It is a mistake to base any decisions on dishonest research.

Every sentence in that post is complete BS. It sucks that it got modded to 5 so now I have to go searching for references to refute it.

I'll pick the gun control one since that is easy:

Until only several years ago, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was _never_ considered a personal right as a matter of law

Easiest hit: Wikipedia on early commentary on the second amendment. Another one is U.S. Supreme Court Cases on the second amendment. There is plenty of commentary regarding the second amendment's status as a personal right within 10 years of it's writing. Case law goes back to the 1800s.

The problem with these sorts of incidents is that on the unlikely chance it had been an actual terrorist attack, the police could be sued if they wasted any time at all.

Law enforcement has no duty to protect anybody. They are not even liable if they prevent you from protecting yourself and then decline to protect you.

https://www.firearmsandliberty...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

Dissent from Riss v. New York: What makes the City's position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.

The main subset is in fact crime prevention.

Incorrect. In fact, the US courts explicitly ruled that the police do not have a duty or obligation to protect anyone, or prevent any crime.

Yep, the police also have no duty to protect you. Besides, if you have a gun in your face you're not calling the cops. Every person in this country needs to start taking their own safety seriously instead of listening to all the BS the liberals tell you to do when confronted by a criminal.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

That's not surprising, the police have no duty to protect you:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

"In 1989, in a suburb of Los Angeles, Maria Navarro called the L. A. County Sheriff's 911 emergency line asking for help. It was her birthday and there was a party at her house, but her estranged husband, against whom she had had a restraining order, said he was coming over to kill her. She believed him, but got no sympathy from the 911 dispatcher, who said: "What do you want us to do lady, send a car to sit outside your house?" Less than half an hour after Maria hung up in frustration, one of her guests called the same 911 line and informed the dispatcher that the husband was there and had already killed Maria and one other guest. Before the cops arrived, he had killed another. "

If your lawyer didn't listen, you need a new lawyer. Or maybe you just need to listen to your lawyer, the fact that you're still alive shows they were just empty threats.

Always good to remember that, although they may choose to, the police have no legal obligation to protect you.

The authorities have no duty to protect anyone: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

The best thing to do about crime is to stop it yourself whenever you see it going on. If you have the nuts for it, you can become a bounty hunter and hunt people down yourself for a living.

As loath as I am to link to this site, it gives a very good explanation.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

From the second paragraph: "Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens - even in large cities - were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded "standing army... England's first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827."

This is not true. Starting ones thesis with "facts" that are provably not true does not imbue confidence in ones analytical abilities.

Warren v. District of Columbia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Castle Rock v. Gonzales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

As loath as I am to link to this site, it gives a very good explanation.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

Correct. Police are an auxiliary force that has no responsibility to protect or even enforce the law while they are present, as numerous court cases have shown. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

You aren't allowed to have a gun in a bar. At least not in Florida. Generally speaking, you aren't allowed to be drunk and carrying a weapon either, even if you have a CCW. To refute your last sentence, I choice to carry because, at least in the USA, the police have no duty to protect individuals. So for me, I value my right to carry and protect my family since I know the police may not be able to. Even my wife has a CCW as you are correct, she is a bit scared about going out of the house at night as we do live in a moderately bad area of town. Now excuse me, I need to get back to making reloads and cleaning my AR-15 as their is a match this weekend :)

There are reasons to disarm an entire society. There are reasons not to. "Compelling" arguments are made for both sides, as both exist or existed somewhere.

I give more credence to the reasons not to do so. Such as tyranny (scroll down to Athenaion Politeia 14-15), racist oppression, and worst, out-right genocide, over and over.

As you may or may not know, the police have no obligation to protect you. Their job is to show up afterwards and assign blame. The courts have ruled this over and over. No one is responsible for your personal saftey but you.

heres a little light reading if you disagree:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protectio n.html

http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/some -considerations-before-the-gun-control-rhethorics/

I recommend you read The Unabridged Second Amendment, as well as A Nation of Cowards before you publicize such thoughtless positions.

...while killings by civilians are held lawful only after at least ordinarily rigorous scrutiny, killings by police enjoy an extraordinary bias toward exonerating the officer even in the most egregious cases. Available data do not allow estimation of how many police killings routinely classified as "justifiable" should have instead been classified as unlawful. But the one comparative study finds that while innocent persons had been misidentified as criminals in 2% of cases where civilians used guns defensively, 11% of a sample of police gun uses involved such misidentification.

Read some of the case law http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protectio n.html/.

The police have no duty to protect you ... not even if you've been granted a protection order.

Your analogy also fails because there is a charge for "attempted robbery" just as there is one for "attempted murder" and there is not one for "planning" to kill someone.

Wonder if the laws the RIAA bought included an "attempted copyright violation"?

That's precisely what I'm suggesting, and I'm willing to back it up with research by scholars.

That is bullshit, and I'll tell you why. The courts have established that "Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals".

Just reading about the case history behind this makes me spitting mad. It takes a stong constitution to even read that entire compilation.

Everyone has the right to defend their safety. In my eyes, everyone has the responsibility to defend their safety.

Although courts upheld that felons could not be charged for both posession of, and failure to register a firearm. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.ht ml

As long as you are tossing around correlations regarding violent crime, I have one that is better supported and actually has an identifiable cause. See these links:

Crime
Crime and the Drug War

It is no stretch to say that crime is more closely associated with the differenct prohibitions than with lessing religious adherence.

Then you are a fool, and since the GPP declined to site evidence, I will do so myself:

• No right to police protection
• Police have a right to refuse to protect you
• Police have no duty to protect you

That enough for you?

Hmmpf, and here I thought Jim Crow causes gun laws. Silly me. Gun control isn't racist. It's just those damned 'inner city gang members' bringing it on themselves. Damned white kids dealin' smack and shootin' up the hood.

I agree. Criminals already have to wear anklets to make sure they are home when they are supposed to be. But when they are allowed out (work/school) there is no way to verify that they are indeed at work or school.

FYI: Most states only currently incarcerated criminals can't vote, once they have served their sentence they are allowed to vote. Here's a more official source for PA. It makes sense that felons can vote; otherwise how would they be able to vote against the laws that put them there.

And another tidbit is that convicted felons are the only people that can have a gun, but don't have to register it.

How many non-NRA members (of which catagory I fall into) understand that the 18th century phrase "well-regulated" translates into "subject to regulations of a higher authority" in 20th century American English? Or that the regulation of the militia applies to those actively engaged in militia duty?

Or that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a present participle, rather than a clause? That means that the phrase is intended as a justification, not a limitation.

Or who the "militia" entails. In the words of the founding father George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." Under the US Code, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, 311, the militia is legally all males over 17 years of age, plus any females that are part of the National Guard. Anyone not in the National guard and not female is part of the unorganized militia.

Or what the intended purpose of the militia, being the whole of the people, is? In the words of Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts during the floor debate of the Bill of Rights: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." From which we can infer that even though we have a standing Army now, it is not necessarily a good thing, Posse Comitatus restrictions notwithstanding.

Consider these roughs drafts of the Second Amendment:

• "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own states or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals." (by the Pennsylvania Legislature)
• "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (by James Madison)
• "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." (from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted by George Mason)

A more modern version of the Second Amendment might be written thus: "No law, rule or regulation infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be passed, in order that the militia, being subject to regulation of conduct and civilian authority, may be effective in providing security to the nation." The Second Amendment is a limitation on the powers of the government, and a limitation on the powers of any majority bloc, as is all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. It is intended to be the final defense against subjugation of the American people, whether from an external power or by their own government.

Finally, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when th

Instead of showing ID to stop terrorists, how about pilots have guns and just shoot anyone who jumps up on a plane waiving a bomb/knife/gun/whatever shouting "Allah Akbar!"

Perhaps we could make ID an option, if you want to carry a gun on a plane, you need to show ID and sign a waiver. Then not only can the pilot shoot the terrorists so can citizens and filght attendents.

You might think I'm kidding . . .

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.h tml

OK, now I'm really confused. Your exemplary checklist is the way it should be, however, how did it work in the Branch Davidian / David Koresh case, which in fact may be more of the norm.

Waco Search Warrant

"...Criticism of federal law enforcement actions at Waco has not been in short supply...Missing from the discussion of how the federal government handled the Waco disaster is how the government got into the problem in the first place. In particular, how and why did the government procure the search and arrest warrants which the BATF was attempting to "serve" with its unsuccessful raid? A careful study of the Waco search warrant reveals numerous flaws, not just with the warrant application but with search and seizure law as it has developed in the 1990s."

Is a Search Warrant Your Death Warrant

"...The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures....However, the government can abuse the Fourth and Eighth Amendments to undercut the Second...

...A review of the evidence the BATF put forward to justify its first search warrant indicates that the case it had against Koresh was based more on his views than his actions... ...David Koresh had what most of us would consider strange religious views. However, there is no federal death penalty for believing oneself to be Jesus Christ. Koresh and his people owned firearms--more than one, in fact. There is nothing illegal about that. David Koresh didn't think much of the BATF. That appears to have been a crime. ...

...That this is the last charge made in the affidavit prior to the raid should be an alarm to every law-abiding gun owner. According to the BATF, it is suspicious for a citizen to believe in the right to bear arms, be knowledgeable about firearms laws and own video tapes critical of the BATF. If this is grounds for a search warrant to be served by an army, the rest of us had better step lightly...."