Skip to main content

View Diary: I can Kill you if I want to (266 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have personally witnessed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Konan, Joy of Fishes, Vet63

    A guy take a taser away from the security guard who just tased him with it and use it to beat the security guard in the face.

    Your "kung fu" will also work wonderfully after your assailant shoots you.

    •  Same thing happens to gun owners (8+ / 0-)

      I am sure you are correct.

      And yet, gun owners have the exact same problem.  There are many cases of gun owners who find their guns being used against them.

      Indeed there is evidence that a gun onwer's gun is used against the same gun owner more often than is used to defend the gun owner from attack.  There are many studies that show a gun owner's gun is involved in more shootings of friends and family (accidental and intentionally) than are used to shoot criminals and intruders.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:07:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's great (0+ / 0-)

        and you can use that information in your own choice to own a firearm or not. Now leave my choice to me thanks.

        •  Your "choice" ends ... (6+ / 0-)

          ... where my right not to get shot by you begins.

          I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

          by ObamOcala on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:20:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Fully understanding your choice (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, liberalguy, Vet63

          In America, you are allowed to choose to carry a gun, just as you are allowed to smoke cigarettes.

          But you should be fully aware of the consequences of your decisions.

          If you decide to smoke cigarettes, the consequences include heart attacks and stroke, and many other serious health problems.

          There are similar consequences of carrying a gun.  You yourself are at greater risk for suffering a gunshot injury than are people who choose not to carry a gun.  Your significant other is ALSO at increased risk for getting shot than are the SOs of people who do not carry a gun.  There is an increased risk that you, your SO, and your kids will use your gun to kill your/themselves.

          A "positive" study for gun owners found that a gun in the home is used to shoot the owner, a family member or an invited guest SIX TIMES more often than the gun is used to shot an uninvited intruder (this study was "positive" because the other study that was done found that the ratio of unwanted shootings to defensive shooting was something like 20:1).

          Feel safer now?  It is your choice to carry a gun, but you are not safer for it.  You may "feel" safer, but that is not the objective reality.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 03:38:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hugh Jim Bissell (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            I am sorry I missed this yesterday,Your messagei is powerful
            and people should read it. It goes without saying,I agree
            with every word.
            Thanks for your wisdom,
            Mike

            Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

            by Vet63 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:04:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  As long as you open carry (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          liberalguy, Vet63

          So everyone else can see the gun, where it's pointed, and decide for themselves if they trust you.

          Concealed carry is sneaking around with it, taking the ability of others to get out of the way away from them.



          Women create the entire labor force.
          ---------------------------------------------
          Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

          by splashy on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 05:57:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You don't have a right to invade my (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kasoru

            privacy. I'll carry concealed, thanks.

            •  So, you are very happy to put others at risk (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, fcvaguy

              Without letting them know it, right?

              Way to infringe on others. Take away their ability to get out of the line of fire.



              Women create the entire labor force.
              ---------------------------------------------
              Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

              by splashy on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:02:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  A holstered firearm is not a risk to anyone. nt (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DavidMS
              •  Historically, concealed carry was considered (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fcvaguy, Glen The Plumber

                devious and unfair, because it gave unfair advantage, and induced the bearer to commit criminal acts (paraphrasing and summarizing), and surprise assassinations. I only learned this recently, from reading about the 18th century rationale for prohibiting concealed carry.

                So, concealed carry is a modern social convention. Keep posting splashy. You're planting seeds every time you lay out your clear and compelling logic.

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:26:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Over the past few months (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

                  my thinking has evolved. If you want to carry a weapon outside your home, it should be in the wide open. No concealed carry.

                  KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                  by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:38:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not there yet, for a variety of reasons (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fcvaguy, Glen The Plumber

                    but with examining the historical arguments I'm far less certain than I used to be that concealed carry is better. It seems like we failed to learn from our past and so we are unawares, deluding ourselves, blindly repeating the lesson.

                    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                    by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:54:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I understand (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

                      I'd been thinking the same way. And, I think Splashy up above, makes an excellent point. People should know and be aware of who and what is around them. Interestingly, some of the RKBA seem to not like that idea, citing their "Privacy" rights to conceal their weapons. I don't believe in such an association.

                      KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                      by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 05:43:37 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Of course you don't. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrankRose

                        Which is fine. But you don't get to force your beliefs on other people.

                        •  projecting much KV? (0+ / 0-)
                          you don't get to force your beliefs on other people
                          The only right to privacy with respect to concealed carry exists in your mind only. Not in any juris prudence.

                          You like your guns. You want to carry them everywhere. You've made that clear numerous times.

                          You should do so proudly, and OPENLY.

                          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                          by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 07:17:53 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Right, because only things with clear (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru

                            precedent in the courts or legislation can every truly be correct or right.

                            So, by that standard, you support Heller and McDonald right?

                          •  I support Heller and McDonald (0+ / 0-)

                            You don't. You disagreed with Scalia's ruling where he cited examples of reasonable restrictions.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 08:32:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually, I've pointed to the "cannot ban (0+ / 0-)

                            commonly used firearms" section of that ruling often enough. I don't support "no restrictions" as a policy plank on firearms.

                          •  Scalia: (0+ / 0-)
                            Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
                            Scalia then acknowledged in his interview with Fox that future rulings will sort out "common use" and other remaining ambiguities. Scalia got what he wanted, an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment. But, he's no idiot. When Heller II and NYSAFE, and other laws get up to the SCOTUS, I think you may very well be seriously disappointed.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 08:55:40 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I completely agree with your bolded section. (0+ / 0-)
                            It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
                            I can't carry a bazooka or grenades or a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher (or cruise missiles, etc). There are currently restrictions on who can obtain NFA firearms and devices.

                            When those cases make it up to SCOTUS, what happens if you're the one who is disappointed?

                          •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

                            In previous dialogue, you made it clear you didn't agree with Scalia in the blockquote. That puts you to the right of him even.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:04:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If RKBA was a right/left issue, I could concede (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            that.

                            I don't agree with everything in the original blockquote, which is why I narrowed it down.

                          •  What part don't you agree with? (0+ / 0-)

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:10:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I disagree with this: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru
                            For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
                            I'm reading that as any/all current prohibitions, not just some. I have no problem with some restrictions on who can carry, where they can carry, etc. But places like Cali or New Jersey or Hawaii are overly restrictive.

                            Guess we will find out when that recently discussed case hits SCOTUS.

                          •  PS there are three points in the bolded (0+ / 0-)

                            You addressesd one.

                            1) any weapon whatsoever
                            2) in any manner whatsoever
                            3) for whatever purpose.

                            He said that for a reason. You should give it some thought to understand what he was saying.

                            For example, I know you were trumpeting the recent Ninth Circuit ruling overturning San Diego's law regarding concealed carry. However, it was overturned by a 3 judge panel, two of whom are noted conservatives, and not the full court.

                            When it gets to the full court, the San Diego law could very well be upheld under Scalia's "for whatever purpose" clause. We shall see.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:07:57 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  There is a direct analogy (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Glen The Plumber, fcvaguy

                        that might apply the same logic from voting to gun rights. When people want to exercise their right to vote they must register their intent to do so in advance. It's a matter of public record. Their actual vote is private, but their party affiliation and whether they voted are matters of public record. And in most jurisdictions people must show up to vote in person. If they mess up any part of the rules, they have to wait 2 years before they get another chance to exercise their right to vote. But in no case do they ever get to "be a voter" without their families, their neighbors, their friends, their employers knowing about it.

                        IOW we ask people to surrender a little privacy to exercise their constitutional right. It used to be the sane approach to public gun carry too. Now we expect everyone to surrender some medical privacy, for their entire lives, even though the vast majority will never seek to purchase or own a gun.

                        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                        by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 06:41:03 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  There is absolutely zero association (0+ / 0-)

              between the right to privacy and concealed carry. And, courts have NEVER associated a right to privacy to concealed carry.

              KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

              by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:37:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  splashy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            I am sorry I ran out of time yesterday to tell you your
            Conceled carry statement goes to the heart of why there are
            so many sad murders in this country.
            Thank you for writing,
            Mike

            Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

            by Vet63 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:09:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'd add (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas

        I'd like to see the stats for this:

        "Indeed there is evidence that a gun onwer's gun is used against the same gun owner more often than is used to defend the gun owner from attack."

        Since the lowball number of defensive gun uses in the US is over 100,000 a year.

        •  this has been published so many times... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, Vet63, liberalguy

          please just start here

          http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/...

          so many many times

          if you come back again then we know you are trolling

          •  A link to a series of studies (0+ / 0-)

            Is not a direct citation that shows that these mythical "used against the same gun owner" incidents exceed the (I'll be generous and cut the lowest estimate I have ever seen in half) 50,000 defensive gun uses a year.

          •  i saw an old tree today (3+ / 0-)

            Thanks for the link! I read it and I am not surprized. It is a
            great report.
            Your name wins the prize for being  the most original!
            Mike

            Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

            by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 03:08:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  a friend of mine asked me years ago, what does it (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, Vet63

              mean, I said nothing, I'd just been hiking that day and saw a tree that's about 800 yo, what's really cool is that tree is not far from my house, in a state park

              the hsph studies have been published and republished so many times here, I did years ago, I've seen many many times recently

              if someone hasn't read them then they are remiss-thanks for your diary today

              •  i saw an old tree today (0+ / 0-)

                I have no idea why I missed your message yesterday, I am going to find nature photos that are always sent to me, I have
                a hunch you might like them. I may make a whole diary
                filled with beautiful pictures. Would it fit in this paper?
                Probably not,but I still will post them.
                Thanks for telling me how you came up with your great name.
                Mike

                Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

                by Vet63 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:15:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  I'll be your Huckleberry (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, liberalguy

          Citation below.  

          Here is my rule: if you ask me for a reference, I ask you to answer a question to demonstrate to me that you have at least looked at the reference you have asked me for.  If you fail to answer the question, then everyone knows you did not really want to see the thing you asked for and you are FOS.

          Citation: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/...

          And your question: True of False - according to the cited study, is there an increased risk of gun death even when the gun is stored in a locked cabinet?

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 03:59:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site