Friday, February 3, 2012

The Cato Institute Study on GDUs


via The Truth About Guns where they loved this study, I mean what's not to love when the Cato boys are singin' the gun-rights song.

The ostensible purpose of gun control legislation is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries. The restriction of access to firearms will make criminals unable to use guns to shoot people. Gun control laws will also reduce the number of accidental shootings. Those are the desired effects, at least in theory. It is important, however, for conscientious policymakers to consider not only the stated goals of gun control regulations, but the actual results that they produce.

What would be the effect of depriving ordinary, law-abiding citizens from keeping arms for self-defense? One result seems certain: the law-abiding would be at a distinct disadvantage should criminals acquire guns from underground markets. After all, it is simply not possible for police officers to get to every scene where they are urgently needed.

Now everyone knows that surveys and polls can be easily manipulated by phrasing the questions one way or the other. But this is too funny. I hope you're sitting down.

This paper uses a collection of news reports of self-defense with guns over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America.
The conclusion: "The bottom line is that gun owners stop a lot of criminal mayhem every year."

What's your opinion?  Is that a riot, or what? Those of us who look at new reports of shootings can tell you that the ratio between improper gun use and proper gun use is, I don't know, what would you say it is? In the past I've put it at 100 to 1.  What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

47 comments:

  1. Given your obvious bias against gun owners, as illustrated by the times that you express doubts in the times that you do report defensive uses of guns, my interpretation is that you miss a lot. We all tend to find what we look for. You look for criminal use of guns; the Cato Institute looks for good uses. The truth is probably a combination of both, and what we ought to do about it is a matter of debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, a combination of the both, like 90/10.

      Delete
  2. Um, greg, given your tremendous ignorance, any "obvious bias against gun owners" lies purely in your own mind.

    I'm not sure how familiar you are with this Koch funded organisation, but they also will tell you that smoking poses no harm, there is no such thing as climate change...

    Of course, you would probably say these people are also biased:
    http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato.

    If anything, any obvious bias is shown by you< greg, for not chosing to look too closely as to who is funding all these causes you bel;ieve you favour.

    You may find ignorance is bliss, but your "freedom" comes at a cost to real freedom and liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Straight question for you, greg--

    if you knew someone lied to you on a consistent basis--how much would you trust what that person said?

    Wouldn't you take whatever they said with a serious grain of salt?

    I know that at least three of Cato's positions are totally incorrect, which doesn't even begin to cover what I feel about Libertairianism.

    So, if you belive that climate change is a crock of shit (as I sit here freexing in the coldest winter in 26 years), smoking is good for you, recycling is a crock, and so on, then you might believe that there are quite a few DGUs.

    On the other hand, I would believe that as much as the real Laci is actually writing this comment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pooch said: "So, if you belive that climate change is a crock of shit (as I sit here freexing in the coldest winter in 26 years)"

    Well, if those who promote climate change are like you and can't tell the difference between weather and climate, how can they possibly have any credibility. Wouldn't we, as you say, Take whatever they say with a grain of salt?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous;

      Are you too stupid to understand even video?

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0

      Delete
    2. OK, anonymous, since uyou show two to the common traits amongst gun loons--ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and being a plain off dumbfuck,-- I'll try to keep it simeple for ya.

      One of the signs of climate change is unsual and extreme weather: such as unually warm weather or unuasually cold weather.

      There are plenty of signs that climate change is a reality--and any comment such as the one you made shows a vast amount of ignorance of the debate.

      Delete
    3. "OK, anonymous, since uyou show two to the common traits amongst gun loons--ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and being a plain off dumbfuck"

      That's three, not two. Kinda obvious who the dumbfuck is.

      Delete
  5. Did I say that I buy everything said by the Cato Institute? Regardless of their many positions, reports of defensive gun uses come in from all over the country and from many sources. But as I've said before, raw numbers don't sway me one way or the other. As long as the possibility exists for using a firearm in self defense, I'll support private ownership of firearms. I support private ownership for other reasons, too.

    You asked me if I'd trust someone who consistently lies to me. No. That's why I don't believe you and your fellow authors when you claim that you don't want to ban private ownership of firearms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg, if you have actually fact checked my cites, you wouldn't have made that comment.

      Delete
    2. I should also add that when it comes to intellectual dishonesty, Greg, you and Cato are on the same page.

      Which pretty much goes for all of the cun loon community.

      ideology always trumps reality.

      Delete
    3. So, Laci, you're telling me that you support private ownership of firearms? Would you care to show me where you've ever said anything to that effect?

      Delete
  6. The numbers of defensive gun uses and possible benefits get interesting. I am certain a lot of people use guns defensively and don't report anything to anyone. Why? First, lots of people have a general mistrust of the police ... and rightly so in many instances. And what about people that have a firearm in a jurisdiction that frowns upon possession and use for whatever reason? Who is going to report an incident using their gun defensively in those circumstances?

    Now consider my situation in a shall-issue and legal open-carry jurisdiction where firearm ownership and use are common. If a bad guy attacks me and there are no witnesses, it is my word against his word and I could end up being charged for a crime that I didn't commit. Most firearms owners with whom I talk about such scenarios have the same position -- don't say anything to the police for that very reasons.

    Now there is another interesting side to this. Given that a lot of crime is recidivism, how many additional future crimes do armed citizens prevent when they use their gun defensively in a way that results in the capture or death of a criminal?

    When you put all of this together, I fully expect that there are a lot of justifiable defensive gun uses that are never reported. In fact a majority of justifiable defensive gun uses may very well never be reported. And their benefit is understated simply because of the recidivism aspect alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Capn, don't you think there are a lot of people who use guns unnecessarily and call it defensive?

      Delete
    2. Why don't we also add in the methodology of the study--using media reports of DGUs.

      As opposed to more scietific methods,

      If anything, Cato isn't very trustworthy try googling "koch climate change study"

      I should also add that a knowledge of propaganda and critical thinking ability are somewhat useful in all this.

      of course, you can just take the word of those who happen to share your own opinion rather than make up your own mind on the topic.

      Whcih is what most gun loons tend to do.

      Delete
    3. You mean, Laci, why don't we use a method different from what is used here?

      Delete
  7. There are two more problems when one compares the benefit of justifiable defensive gun uses and the number of assaults/murders where criminals use firearms for their weapon.

    (1) How many crimes never happen -- that would have happened -- because criminals (or would be criminals) suspect that a citizen is armed and change their minds? How often does that happen? Who knows but anyone would have to admit the number is not zero.

    (2) Relatively few citizens carry firearms everywhere. While something like one in 25 adults have concealed carry licenses, not all of them carry all the time. If nearly ever adult who was eligible carried a firearm all the time, how much would justifiable defensive gun uses increase? How much would violent crime decrease?

    For anyone who scoffs at these points, explain how violent crime is non-existent at shooting ranges and police stations -- two locations where the majority of adults are armed citizens or law enforcement officers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I’m not buying your guesstimated ratio of 100:1, but honestly I don’t care. That ratio is an extremely poor rationale for more gun control. Even if it is 100:1 (which means you think there are around 7000 DGU’s a year), why should that mean more restrictions for the good guys? Look at it this way- if ours is 100:1, what do you think it is in the UK? 10,000:1? Sure there are fewer gun crimes there, but assuredly even fewer DGUs. Does this mean the UK needs even more gun control- even moreso than us? Or look at the DGU ratio in New York City vs. a place that allows concealed carry. Your logic means it is NYC that needs the tougher laws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TS, Unfortunatley, more restrictions for the good guys are necessary to slow down the gun flow to the bad guys.

      Delete
    2. Rights come with responsibilities--I see very little responsibility coming from the gun loon community.

      If anything, most of you tend to demonstrate serious irresonsible behaviour.

      The right created under Heller-McDonald is extremely limited.

      Not as much as how the Second Amendment should be read, which is as a guarantee for state militias.

      Nothing more, nothing less.

      The real issue was standing armies v. militias during the Constitutional ratification debates--very little mention was made of personal arms.

      Delete
    3. Oh, yes, Mikeb, that's the way to solve crime: Punish the good guys.

      Delete
    4. Mike, I’m well aware of your philosophy that it’s the good guys that need restricting. My point is you’re comparing gun crimes to DGUs as if the ratio matters- as if it were a sign that more gun control is needed. If we had a reliable way to tally these two that met your standards, don’t you think we would see the ratio increase as gun control increases? Using that as a ratio for more gun control is the classic slippery slope.

      Delete
    5. It's not punishing, Greg. Do you feel "punished" because you had to get a driver's license?

      Delete
  9. "very little mention was made of personal arms" except for the phrase "the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, that refers to citizen militias shall not be disarmed from bearing arms instead of standing armies.

      Why anonymous are you so against our modern, volunteer military? Because if you are not against us maintaining a standing army, just one of the many areas, like slavery, where the founding fathers got it wrong, then you don't support the 2nd Amendment.

      Because you can't have it both ways.

      Either use the whole sentence, not cherry picking the part you like, or don't use the phrase at all.

      Delete
  10. So if the Constitution does not deal with personal fire arms, then it becomes a States Rights issue that the federal government should not have any control over correct? For the states that do have personal firearms specifically addressed in their Constitutions I assume you have no problem with them allowing ownership of the weapons and even concealed or open carry if they so choose correct? For the states that do not address personal ownership of firearms in their Constitutions, I assume that whatever law the majority passes is considered the factual right for the time being. Now some of you have claimed that there is no right to gun ownership, but in fact several governmental entities have allowed just that right. Maybe what you mean to say is that you think there should not be a right to gun ownership. In that case, your path is pretty straightforward. Go to the states and have them change their laws and in some cases their Consitutions. Of course, working against you are the people that do believe in keeping these rights. So far, I would say those people are winning the debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the Inconvenient Truth (TM) that Dog Gone just won't address. Forty states are shall issue; many have the constitutional protection that you named, and more go our way every year.

      Delete
    2. I'm not afraid of truth, or facts, or developments in fields of thought, like moral philosophy.

      Forty states have changed to shall issue, but that doesn't mean it is a solid majority and it doesn't mean that it is a correct viewpoint. Eleven states incorrectly believed that slavery was moral and a right at one time as well.

      As to the constitutional protection you are claiming, do what I did. Go read those provisions in those constitutions. Every single one I read addressed the importance of guns for the defense of the state, many included language that clearly referenced this was an alternative specifically to standing armies. I couldn't find a single state that did not specify gun rights in that connection whether they used the word militia to refer to state defense or not.

      So you're wrong, as you so often are with rare exceptions, about the state constitutions NOT referring to guns in connection with militias.

      Those states that go 'your' way can go back, and are more likely to do so. You have a temporary situation not a permanent recognition for your position.

      Just keep whistling in the dark, as your swollen, fearful amygdala throbs. Then when you're done try making your way back to reality.

      Delete
    3. Just as with Minnesota, Iowa is considering an amendment to recognize the right of the people to bear arms--without any reference to being in a state-approved organization. Let's hope that both pass.

      I show you example after example of how things are going my way. Just where, other than the current gun grabbing paradises, are things going your way?

      I've answered your silly notion about slavery before. That was a violation of human rights. You can't show me how my guns violate anyone's rights.

      Delete
  11. dog gone said..."I couldn't find a single state that did not specify gun rights in that connection whether they used the word militia to refer to state defense or not."

    You must lack in reading skills then. Most of the Constitutions say in defense of self or the state

    Individual right
    Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms

    Alaska: The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed

    Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms

    Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms


    Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms ... shall be called in question;

    Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms

    Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms

    Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms

    Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,

    Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms,

    Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

    Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms

    Kentucky: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves

    Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged,

    Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms


    Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms

    Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms

    Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms

    Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms

    Nebraska: All persons are by nature free ..... pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms

    Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms

    New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms

    New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms

    North Dakota: and to keep and bear arms

    Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms

    + a dozen or so more.


    Well regulated militia clause or common defence
    Hawaii
    Massachusetts
    North Carolina
    South Carolina
    Virginia


    New York: No provision.

    -someguy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Billy Baldwin - you are the one who seems to have the problem with reading and comprehension.

      For example, the full wording of the Alaska constitution you claim DOESN'T refer to militias is this:

      A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
      shall not be infringed.


      What I said was that every single state in some respect makes reference to a militia, or the role of a militia, the defense of the state.

      You haven't shown that to be incorrect.

      What you have shown is that you are intellectually dishonest and factually inaccurate.

      YOU LOSE.

      Delete
    2. "What I said was that every single state in some respect makes reference to a militia, or the role of a militia, the defense of the state."
      very few states mention a militia in their right to bear arms clauses. Some states don't even mention defence of the state in their clauses

      Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

      Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged..

      + 9 others

      "For example, the full wording of the Alaska constitution you claim DOESN'T refer to militias is this:"

      Alaska: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19.
      As you can see, it's clearly an individual right. I wasn't trying to hide that they had a militia clause, I only posted the relevant individual right information to keep the posting as short as possible.
      Alaska Const.

      -someguy

      Delete
    3. Does this mean that someguy = Bill Baldwin?

      Delete
  12. Pooch said, "Rights come with responsibilities"

    I've looked at the Constitution for the United States and the only responsibilities I see are for the government to protect those rights. Now, if you can show me in that document where we have a responsibility to not say certain things, not to be armed in certain places, not to be allowed to keep any papers or documents we want, not to incriminate ourselves only sometimes, etc., please direct me to the section on our responsibilities, if you can.

    ReplyDelete
  13. When I carry concealed with the only intent of defending myself, my family, and possibly other citizens from criminal attacks, how is that not carrying in defense of the state? Am I not a member of the state? Are my family members and other citizens not members of the state?

    And consider concealed carry in my state where we have to pass a written test after a mandatory amount of classroom training, demonstrate proficiency on a range, pass a background check, and then obtain and carry a license. We have an army of several hundred thousand citizen volunteers who have gone through this process and carry concealed firearms for the explicit purpose of defending the state? How does that not qualify as a well regulated militia defending the state?

    And beyond the concealed carry situation, we have an army of several hundred thousand more people who have passed additional mandatory firearm safety training for the privilege of hunting. Those citizen hunters have spent on the order of a half billion dollars on equipment, maintaining and sighting in their firearms, and practicing at private and public shooting ranges. How is that not a well regulated militia available to act for the public defense? In case you doubt that assertion, Japan decided against invading the U.S. for that very reason.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Outside of the 2nd Amendment I still have a right to keep and bear arms. I have a Natural Right to life and liberty -- which also means I have a Natural Right to defend my life and liberty. How can I defend my life and liberty without effective tools? Non-lethal measures are not effective. The only effective tool that works for just about all circumstances is a firearm.

    I read a comment from someone else recently that was incredibly poignant. If someone has a right to free speech, and yet is restricted from using their voice, a pen, a computer, a printer, signs, books, etc. they really don't have a right. The same goes to the right to life and liberty. If I am restricted from using the only effective tools to preserve my right to life and liberty, then I really don't have a right to life and liberty at all. Until someone comes up with Star Trek handheld phaser pistols with rapid multi-shot stun capability, firearms are the next best thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bullshit. There is no such thing as a natural right to lethal weapons.

      You have, as the Universal Declaration of Rights so aptly puts it, a right to be safe. That means a right to live in a society where there is effective police protection, effective military protection against actions by other countries, and an effective judicial system.

      You have no more right to lethal weapons than I have the right to scream fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

      You make a completely false argument in making the comparison to being barred from using a pen, voice, computer etc.

      You, like Greg, like the idiots who spout off about de Vattel without having a clue to what he actually wrote, don't actually know diddly squat about moral philosophy or logic or anything else related to this topic. So you try to attribute some ominipotence to the founding fathers, and in extreme cases, you try to deny their flaws and failures.

      The reality is the founding fathers got some things right and some things wrong. The reality is that where they were concerned about future tyranny, they were unaware that peaceful protest would turn out to be the primary NEW development in revolution, from Gandhi onwards through MLK and our current events in the Arab spring and other instances, NOT armed rebellion.

      You need to make a better and more honest argument, and you damned well need to learn a lot more about moral philosophy.

      YOU and your pro-gunner friends are all part of the violence and the culture which promotes and embraces and exalts violence.

      Delete
    2. dog gone said..."That means a right to live in a society where there is effective police protection,"
      SCOTUS has ruled many times that the government has no duty to protect the citizens.

      Delete
    3. Dog Gone, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. both achieved such great things--in America, a nation that is in many ways still divided along race lines and in the subcontinent, two nations that have gone to war with each other several times and can't seem to get along.

      But you have yet to answer my question about my right to life. How does that mean anything if I'm not allowed a practical tool for defending my life? Yes, the police do good work much of the time, but they also can't do everything.

      With regard to moral philosophy, though, a lack of acceptance does not equate to a lack of knowledge. Unless, that is, you're arguing that what is new must always be better.

      Delete
    4. Bullshit, Billy; that is NOT what SCOTUS has ruled, much less 'many times'. It ruled that while law enforcement had a general duty to protect citizens, it was not liable for failures in serving everyone simultaneously if they are unable to be in multiple places at one time.

      No one has ever asserted that the government is not tasked with protecting its citizens and your claim is a gross misrepresentation of that.

      You and your fellow pro-gunners just love to distort and make false arguments.

      There is no justification, no reasoning, no pretext that excuses or makes acceptable the number of people who die, or are injured, or threatened every year by guns, particularly in comparison to those countries where that does not happen because of more sane gun laws.

      Every time you feel it is imperative that you go armed everywhere, that you promote the shoot first casstle doctrine, that you lobby for the returning of firearms rights to dangerous felons, you are arguing for and supporting a violent society with your stupid gun culture. Every time you argue for no background checks, as in the case of private transfers and transactions, you support more violence, more people who should be prohibited from gun ownership having guns and using them violently.

      You have to use the high SOUNDING pretext of moral philosophy, but the reality is that there is nothing moral, or for that matter, philosophical about what you want at all.

      While the individuals among you may claim that you see lethal violence only as a last resort, the situations you recommend as good ones for gun use are terrible. While you claim to value less lethal means, like the workman who has only a hammer in his toolbox, you rely pretty much on guns as the sole slution for any range of situations, and denigrate less violent and non-violent ones. That gives no credibility to the assertions you want to avoid violence.

      If we chose to do so, if we do what we know how to do to prvenet crime, there is a great deal more we can do to reduce it, and to prevent it, me and to reduce violence in this country, efforts which have nothing whatsoever to do with more citizens shooting other citizens. If we put a fraction of the money spent on firearms in this country towards that general safety of us all, we would be even safer than the reduction of crime to date has made us so far.

      It is a choice. We choose to be a civil society or a violent one; it is a choice we ALL make.

      Delete
    5. If we have "a right to be safe. That means a right to live in a society where there is effective police protection, effective military protection against actions by other countries, and an effective judicial system."

      Does that mean we should be able to sue for damages whenever that society fails to provide such protections? Obviously, every murder (heck every violent crime that results in an injury) that occurs is a failure of the government to protect the right to safety that is the duty of the government to provide. Sounds like negligence to me at the very least.

      Delete
    6. "It ruled that while law enforcement had a general duty to protect citizens.."
      DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) SCOTUS ruled the state has no duty to protect individuals.
      (a) A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.

      South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) SCOTUS ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.

      + 8 others from SCOTUS and who knows how many circuit court rulings, so no, the government has no duty to protect the citizens OR liability for not enforcing the laws, even if you have a protective order as in TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES

      "It is a choice. We choose to be a civil society or a violent one; it is a choice we ALL make."
      You're right, it's a choice. It's a choice the bad guy makes when he decides to commit a violent act. If the bad guy doesn't want to get dead, he shouldn't follow that path that ends on the wrong side of a firearm.

      Delete
  15. Dog gone,

    Let me start by saying that violence -- up to and including lethal force -- are always the last resort. As a society we should always rigorously apply non-violent actions to bring about positive change. I have never exalted violence. In my experience I have only come across a handful of citizens who do.

    As for police and military "protection", failures are rampant. We can point to recent examples of the riots in Los Angeles in the 1980s where the police pulled out ... leaving citizens in peril for days with absolutely zero police protection. We have southern Arizona in 2010 where the County Sheriff announced he had lost control of his county to drug smugglers ... in conjuction with the federal government refusing to assist and ceding control of tens of thousands of square miles of Arizona to the drug smugglers. And of course we have even more personal failures like the 18 year old mother of the infant in Oklahoma who shot her attacker 20 minutes after calling 911 and reporting the event to police ... who were still en-route. And finally we can simply look at the 1.2 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2010. If the police were providing protection, why were there 1.2 million violent crimes?!?!?!

    And history shows us clearly that non-violent actions are often ineffective for innocent people. In the 20th century alone:
    (1) Governments globally executed something like 50 to 100 million innocent people.
    (2) Criminals in the U.S. have violently attacked or killed tens of millions of citizens.
    And your notion of non-lethal actions in Arab countries has been wonderful where it has worked. And it was disastrous in Lybia and Iran and continues to be disastrous in Syria.

    With so many failures of "peaceful" protests, armies, and police, what is the alternative?

    What is false about my comparison with a non-existent right to free speech if denied the use of pens, signs, printers, etc.? You seek to constrain my right to "defend" myself to methods that do not work. In the free speech example, an antagonist could argue that a person could still use tree bark and berries to makes signs thus they would not need posterboard and markers and still have a right to free speech.

    As for your armed rebellion comment, that is insulting. I never have and never will advocate armed rebellion.

    Throughout the human experience people have sought to deny liberty to other people -- whether it was taking their property (or even slaves) or killing them off for whatever reasons. When non-violent resolutions fail, the only aternatives are to defend liberty or submit to the aggressors. I have a right to defend my liberty and not submit to an aggressor's violent actions. Anyone who denies my right to defend my liberty is an accomplice to the aggressor.

    ReplyDelete
  16. DG said: Bullshit. There is no such thing as a natural right to lethal weapons.

    The bullshit would be your saying there is no natural right to self-defense of yourself or your property. Is that what you believe, because that is what your statement says.


    DG said: "You have no more right to lethal weapons than I have the right to scream fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire."

    You can scream fire in a theatre. But, if a stampede ensues, people get injured and damage is caused you are responsible to the property owner and any criminal charges that may apply.

    DG said: "You make a completely false argument in making the comparison to being barred from using a pen, voice, computer etc."

    The only false argument I see is you calling anyone pro-guns an advocate for violence. Seriously, do you think that is logical and a reasonable statement.
    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete