Kentucky Lawmaker uses her second amendment right to defend herself

[Guest Derek L]

Atta' boy. Give us a few more talking points from the NRA. Guns don't kill kids. Mentally unstable kids kill kids.

Actually those are statistics provided by the American CDC. You’re quite right though, there are no such things as mentality ill, violent (or in relation to the OP) and negligent firearms, those are all clearly human traits. If we as society address those human traits, instances of death and injury will clearly be reduced.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

You are quite right.

Of course no one's getting hurt by a metaphorical picture.

Indeed, reminds me of the Beverly Hillbilles

[ReeferMadness]

Actually those are statistics provided by the American CDC. You’re quite right though, there are no such things as mentality ill, violent (or in relation to the OP) and negligent firearms, those are all clearly human traits. If we as society address those human traits, instances of death and injury will clearly be reduced.

Absolutely agree - and one of those human traits that needs further study is the morbid obsession, among a segment of society (most prevalent in the US), to possess and constantly carry devices that were designed specifically to kill humans and animals. The costs of having so many guns freely available are easy to quantify (see Jacee's figures) but the benefits are nebulous at best.

[Guest Derek L]

Absolutely agree - and one of those human traits that needs further study is the morbid obsession, among a segment of society (most prevalent in the US), to possess and constantly carry devices that were designed specifically to kill humans and animals. The costs of having so many guns freely available are easy to quantify (see Jacee's figures) but the benefits are nebulous at best.

But what is that morbid obsession? The ability to defend oneself? To hunt? Put holes through paper or tin cans? Also, in your view, is this obsession prevalent within all gun owners, or in the States specifically, roughly 1/3rd of the population?

Clearly only a small percent of American gun owners are involved in violence, suicide and accidents, so what of the rest?

Now your use of the term “obsession” can be construed as a form of mental illness, as such, wouldn’t it be prudent to further address all forms of mental illness (and why not violence well we’re at it), including cases that lead to violence with a firearm? Wouldn’t you agree that proper treatment etc for the mentally ill would see a reduction in both gun related suicides and violence?

If such a strategy was in place to deal with mental illness, followed by a further sociological strategy to deal with the root causes of violent crime, couldn’t it then be said that America would then be much better off? All the while, the overwhelming majority of gun owners that are not a problem could keep their guns, well not posing a threat to society?

Let me make this quite clear though, guns are not going anywhere within the United States, so why not concentrate efforts on addressing the actual problem and one that you‘d have a hope in hell of addressing? Would seem like a much better use of time and resources……….

[bush_cheney2004]

....Let me make this quite clear though, guns are not going anywhere within the United States, so why not concentrate efforts on addressing the actual problem and one that you‘d have a hope in hell of addressing? Would seem like a much better use of time and resources……….

Certainly the case, as the gun grabber spasms only drive up gun sales. As for "obsession", Canada ranks 13th in the world for gun ownership per capita.

[Guest Derek L]

Certainly the case, as the gun grabber spasms only drive up gun sales. As for "obsession", Canada ranks 13th in the world for gun ownership per capita.

I would think that ranking to be false:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

The data referenced is from 2007, at the height of the LGR…..At such a time, the LGR had just shy of 8 million firearms registered, yet during the Trudeau Government of the late 70s, the RCMP was commissioned to make a study on how many actual firearms were in Canada, based on imports, domestic production and war surplus numbers…..at the time, they pegged the figure anywhere from 16 million to (IIRC) 22 or 24 million……Taking the most conservative estimate of 16 million would double the official amount registered and of course doesn’t take into account guns smuggled into the country…….

Looking at the Wikipedia chart, I’d easily peg Canada somewhere in the 6th to 8th spot (perhaps higher), fore after the demise of the LGR, many a gun that fell into a lake at the start of the registry have since floated their way to the surface and strangely enough, into the previous owners hands.

[bush_cheney2004]

I would think that ranking to be false:

No objection or quibbling with that...the point being that like Americans, Canadians own a lot of guns.

[On Guard for Thee]

Certainly the case, as the gun grabber spasms only drive up gun sales. As for "obsession", Canada ranks 13th in the world for gun ownership per capita.

We have a lot of guns here in Canada, we just don't kill each other with them in the alarming numbers they do south of the border. And as far as that "enshrined" word you used, I suggest Canadians rights to health care are stated much more clearly than the second amendment you are talking about. Have you ever read it?

[Guest Derek L]

No objection or quibbling with that...the point being that like Americans, Canadians own a lot of guns.

Certainly, but in my view, the difference in rates of gun homicide/suicide/accidents between our two countries can be attributed to several key factors. First, we don’t border Mexico. Second, Canadians don’t have the same rights associated with personal privacy and more specifically, mental health history…….Which leads to the third key factor: gun licensing (the omnibus background check) and to a lesser extent, safe storage laws.......in essence, we make it harder for kooks and crooks to get firearms, granted much easier to do when we don't have a right to bear arms or the preclusion of property rights in our Charter.....

With that said, in the late 90s the NRA did favour extensive background checks, if mental health history and full criminal history were included……..Of course privacy advocates and bleeding hearts scuttled any such inclusion and the rest as they say is history…….

[bush_cheney2004]

We have a lot of guns here in Canada, we just don't kill each other with them in the alarming numbers they do south of the border. And as far as that "enshrined" word you used, I suggest Canadians rights to health care are stated much more clearly than the second amendment you are talking about. Have you ever read it?

Thanks for taking the bait....I knew "enshrined" would prove to be irresistible. Off topic, but health care is not a right in Canada or the U.S. However, the right to own and bear arms is an enumerated right in the U.S. constitution as upheld by the Supreme Court.

[On Guard for Thee]

Thanks for taking the bait....I knew "enshrined" would prove to be irresistible. Off topic, but health care is not a right in Canada or the U.S. However, the right to own and bear arms is an enumerated right in the U.S. constitution as upheld by the Supreme Court.

And what does "A well regulated malitia" mean to you, and why did the NRA scrape that off their new office building in Fairfax? No such ? around Canadian health care. If you're a citizen, you're in.

[bush_cheney2004]

And what does "A well regulated malitia" mean to you, and why did the NRA scrape that off their new office building in Fairfax? No such ? around Canadian health care. If you're a citizen, you're in.

It means I am better at spelling. Gun ownership rights have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of your interpretation from Canada or whatever the NRA says.

[On Guard for Thee]

It means I am better at spelling. Gun ownership rights have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of your interpretation from Canada or whatever the NRA says.

I'm not quoting the NRA or anybody else. I'm quoting the second amendment.

[On Guard for Thee]

But what is that morbid obsession? The ability to defend oneself? To hunt? Put holes through paper or tin cans? Also, in your view, is this obsession prevalent within all gun owners, or in the States specifically, roughly 1/3rd of the population?

Clearly only a small percent of American gun owners are involved in violence, suicide and accidents, so what of the rest?

Now your use of the term “obsession” can be construed as a form of mental illness, as such, wouldn’t it be prudent to further address all forms of mental illness (and why not violence well we’re at it), including cases that lead to violence with a firearm? Wouldn’t you agree that proper treatment etc for the mentally ill would see a reduction in both gun related suicides and violence?

If such a strategy was in place to deal with mental illness, followed by a further sociological strategy to deal with the root causes of violent crime, couldn’t it then be said that America would then be much better off? All the while, the overwhelming majority of gun owners that are not a problem could keep their guns, well not posing a threat to society?

Let me make this quite clear though, guns are not going anywhere within the United States, so why not concentrate efforts on addressing the actual problem and one that you‘d have a hope in hell of addressing? Would seem like a much better use of time and resources……….

One simple question to the obsession issue, do you really need an AR 15 to put holes in paper or protect yourself?

[Guest Derek L]

One simple question to the obsession issue, do you really need an AR 15 to put holes in paper or protect yourself?

Sure....why not? But I fail to see what the gun has to do with the "obsession" issue...5.56/.223 Remington is a relativity cheap cartridge, it uses a small, but fast and accurate bullet, the round itself doesn’t have much of a felt recoil……As for the gun itself, it can be relatively cheap, it’s very accurate, spare parts are everywhere, it’s easy to maintain and is user friendly, well not sacrificing on safety………there is a reason why it’s the best selling semi-auto rifles (and possibly rifle in general in the US) in the United States and Canada.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Derek L

[Bonam]

One simple question to the obsession issue, do you really need an AR 15 to put holes in paper or protect yourself?

If the people you're trying to defend yourself against are government thugs come to take away your AR 15, then yes.

[Guest Derek L]

If the people you're trying to defend yourself against are government thugs come to take away your AR 15, then yes.

Why only "government thugs"?

[Bonam]

Why only "government thugs"?

I did not in fact use the word "only".

[Guest Derek L]

I did not in fact use the word "only".

But why mention "government thugs" as opposed to the more common use, "violent criminal thugs"?

[Bonam]

But why mention "government thugs" as opposed to the more common use, "violent criminal thugs"?

Because government thugs are likely to be well armed? I've also not seen the term "violent criminal thugs" to be particularly common, in fact "government thugs" is probably a more commonly seen term. Besides, the last resort ability to take violent action against a dire overreach of government power is one of the most common arguments used in favor of the right to bear arms.

[On Guard for Thee]

But why mention "government thugs" as opposed to the more common use, "violent criminal thugs"?

The NRA has this rather retarded philosophy that they need to posess guns so as to stop the Gov't from doing something or other, bu tin any case they can fight if they need to. And, I don't think you need a 30 round clip to shoot paper. I know a bit about the .556. from my time in Afghanistan. It was not meant for shooting paper.

[Guest Derek L]

Because government thugs are likely to be well armed? I've also not seen the term "violent criminal thugs" to be particularly common, in fact "government thugs" is probably a more commonly seen term.

I wonder how many “violent criminal thugs” have been befallen by an AR-15 versus “government thugs” in the United States?

Besides, the last resort ability to take violent action against a dire overreach of government power is one of the most common arguments used in favor of the right to bear arms.

Perhaps, but I’d hazard a guess that protection from “violent criminal thugs” is a more common occurrence within the United States....

[Guest Derek L]

The NRA has this rather retarded philosophy that they need to posess guns so as to stop the Gov't from doing something or other, bu tin any case they can fight if they need to. And, I don't think you need a 30 round clip to shoot paper. I know a bit about the .556. from my time in Afghanistan. It was not meant for shooting paper.

I call BS……..I’ve never seen or heard of a 5.56 NATO 30 round “clip”………

[On Guard for Thee]

Let me be clear, I don't have a problem with people having guns, I just want to make sure it's the right people for the right reasons. Canadians have lots of guns as has already been stated. But here we have (now you NRA people plug your ears) background checks and waiting times to at least take a stride to ensure it's not just let's say some drunken rage that has brought you to the "Joe's All Night Guns" store. I have seen 2 people shot outside a war zone and they where both in Florida and both of them were the kind of situation I just mentioned above. just for kicks I went to the gun store. All my ID was Canadian so the man couldn't sell me anything but he said take your DL to the state office, pay them 35 bucks they will take a pic and give you a Fla state DL, and I'll sell you all the AR 15's you want. Now that is damn scary.

[On Guard for Thee]

I call BS……..I’ve never seen or heard of a 5.56 NATO 30 round “clip”………

Well maybe you've never been to Afg. My point is though you can get them on the streets of downtown USA. They tend to get used in school shootings.