No. I think the Birthers are idiots, and their frivolous lawsuits bordering on criminal.
Nice try at guilt by association, though.
Earlier in this thread, I had stated that I thought Mrs. Hain was less than wise for making her stand over open carry at a kid’s soccer game in a public park.
Is this stance unreasonable to you?
Throughout my posting history, I have consistently maintained that, in an abstract sense, owner licensing and some form of firearm registration would probably be useful to curtail accidental deaths, and to assist law enforcement to track stolen firearms/illegally obtained firearms (straw purchasers, etc.). My only reservation to these measures are certain jurisdictions who have already demonstrated a propensity to “rig the rules” in such a way as to use licensing and registration as major impediments to the average citizen’s ability to obtain a firearm, in effect turning them into de facto bans.
Is this stance unreasonable to you?
My stipulation for supporting any notional licensing and registration scheme was that licensing have reasonable, objective criteria, and accessibility equal to driver’s licensing, and that registration be staffed sufficiently for the average citizen to be able to comply without undue hassle; as in, no “Firearm Registration can only be done on the 2nd Wednesday of odd numbered months, between the hours of 11:55 AM to 12:00 PM” type requirements.
Is this stance unreasonable to you?
If one person’s intemperate words to another person were enough to convince you otherwise, I’m somewhat doubtful you were ever “…tempted to start open carrying just because I’m legally allowed to do so”.
Reread my earlier post. The incident was in Dallas, in 1993.
Nice strawman. Please point to any statement I have ever made on this board that I thought that “everyone” should “be packing” at “all times.”
Rhetoric aside (“An Armed Society Is A Polite Society”), I have never once supported universally arming everyone, at all times.
If you think it means “I would like to repeatedly punch you (devilsknew) in the face until all your teeth are knocked out, in order to pound some common civility into you, and to show you that I don’t need a firearm to deal with mouthy little pricks like you,” then yes, that is what I meant in my post to devilsknew.. If you think it means something else, well, that’s on you; please communicate to me what you thought it meant. Use small words.
If I could have magically reached through my computer screen, down through all the internet connections, and out of devilsknew’s monitor, I would’ve already popped him in the snot box with my fist. Sadly, the laws of physics being what they are, that option is unavailable to me, and my knuckles are intact.
If you’re truly curious, open a thread in another forum (IMHO, or MPSIMS, anyplace with more decorous posting guidelines) and PM me. The Dallas PD and DAs office put it down as justified intervention, and I’ll not offer up the details in The Pit so I can be crucified/vilified/demonized 16 1/2 years after-the-fact by assholes and idiots.
I do understand that the most comprehensive review of over 50 studies of firearms laws’ impact on firearm deaths yielded “inconclusive.”
I do understand that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
I do understand that Kellerman’s two studies in question have been roundly debunked by not only prominent criminologists, but also by non-partisan physicians who understand data collection and analysis. Yet “43 times…” is routinely trotted out as if it were established fact.
I do understand that further study is desireable. I truly want to know.
Understand that, given the players, I’m skeptical of new studies from liberal, northeastern universities that have suddenly, miraculously “found” some sort of correlation between firearm ownership and certain increased risks. If the evidence was always there, why is it suddenly being found now, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in DC v. Heller? One increased risk I do believe is in cases of suicides. It is not surprising (and to me, beyond debate) that a firearm’s lethality respective to other methods of suicide does yield higher mortality rates amongst the suicidal.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports as well as the CDC - NIHS’s data collection methods break down data by U.S. county. The “Urban vs. Rural” info is there, and, I believe quite clear on the disparity in crime death rates between the two areas. If there’s any peer-reviewed, non-partisan study on legal gun ownership between the two areas, that could somehow be used to establish some correlation between ownership rates and risk rates, I have yet to see it.
As such, I will not support enhanced restrictions on firearm ownership until such time as any such correlation might be established.
And I will continue to support LEOs and courts that apprehend and prosecute violent criminals, and other people who misuse firearms.
Mrs. Hain’s death is tragic. Using it to gleefully support gun control is dancing on someone’s grave for no other reason than spite. It is as morally reprehensible as the people who applauded Sen. Kennedy’s death by brain cancer simply because they disagreed with his politics, or disliked the Kennedys.
Ask yourself this: How many millions of homes with firearms were NOT the scene of a murder/suicide on the day of Mrs. Hain’s death?