KY Passes New Gun Law

[Dave Schwartz]

New gun laws in Kentucky surprise just about everyone

Kentucky is clearly out-pacing the rest of the nation in allowing citizens to carry guns in public places. The question is, will other states follow?

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/28/new-gun-laws-in-kentucky-surprise-just-about-everyone/

[HUSKER55]

people are way over reacting. think about it like this. If you are a criminal and you know a whole town is armed, if you get noticed the trial is over.

If you give up your gun and only the government has guns ... then your trial is over.

those kids getting shot is a tragedy.

getting rid of guns is a tragedy.

the two are not related.

[GaryG]

I attend the gun shows regularly just to see what is new. They have been twice as crowded as usual during the last few months. There are several booths that sign up new gun buyers for classes on their proper use. Horses, music, cars, guns and pretty girls....what else is there?

[Tom]

The libs like to say that a gun is the common thread among all the mass shooting sprees.

It is actually the lack of guns.

Libs admit they can never stop all the nuts, all the crazies, all those who are intent on doing harm to others, so they rationalize taking the gun away will solve the problem. What it does is create a gun-free zone where no one can fight back.

[boxcar]

The libs like to say that a gun is the common thread among all the mass shooting sprees.

It is actually the lack of guns.

Libs admit they can never stop all the nuts, all the crazies, all those who are intent on doing harm to others, so they rationalize taking the gun away will solve the problem. What it does is create a gun-free zone where no one can fight back.

And that is exactly what the libs want as the continue to oppress the people with harder tyranny. They don't want the citizens to revolt, i.e. "fight back". The libs know exactly what they're doing.

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

IMO...it makes no sense to have the "right to bear arms", when you can't carry your gun with you.

I say, either give the citizens the full protection that their gun will allow...or take their weapons away from them altogether.

A gun is of little use when it sits in a dresser drawer...

[JustRalph]

IMO...it makes no sense to have the "right to bear arms", when you can't carry your gun with you.

I say, either give the citizens the full protection that their gun will allow...or take their weapons away from them altogether.

A gun is of little use when it sits in a dresser drawer...

You're joking right?

[TJDave]

You're joking right?

Because he said it, not you? :lol:

[Dave Schwartz]

A gun is of little use when it sits in a dresser drawer...

It is of plenty of use if the issue (intruder) is in your home.

Truthfully, we have done tactical drills in our home to determine the best place to set up if the intrusion alarm goes off.

Seriously, as good a shot as Beth has become, I believe she could defend herself nicely.

[JustRalph]

Exact point I was going to make. Schwartz running actual drills.....good stuff :ThmbUp:

Remember Dave, concealment is not cover, and vice versa. Very important.

[Dave Schwartz]

Exactly. What we were most concerned about is that someone could see a reflection of us on the 2nd floor and fire up through the ceiling.

So, depending upon where the intruders are - which you see from a peak out the bedroom door, you choose the logical place. Ultimately, the dogs investigate... and try to love one to the floor. :lol:

I can here them now: "Throw down your weapons or the dog gets it."

We'd say, "Which dog is that?" :lol:

Frankly, if I saw one with a gun, I would likely just open fire.

I am reasonably sure that Beth could do that, were I not home. She is the master of the 3-round burst. LOL

[hcap]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence

New study guys.

...researchers from Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health studied information from all 50 states between 2007 to 2010, analyzing all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and data on firearm laws compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.

Ok, bring on them anecdotes :lol: :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

So if I'm getting it...there are two trends looking to be established here by the Obama administration...

Disarm the populace (slowly of course)...

Then monitor and if necessary, kill them with drones... :lol:

[hcap]

So if I'm getting it...there are two trends looking to be established here by the Obama administration...

Disarm the populace (slowly of course)...

Then monitor and if necessary, kill them with drones... :lol:Let me see if I get these totally unrelated issues from a conservative talking point point of view.

Drones don't kill people, the Obama administration does? :)

Gee, what made me EVER think conservatives are driven by paranoid conspiracy theories and fantasies?

But I guess your paranoia explains why right wing "patriot" loony tune groups have quadrupled lately :)

[JustRalph]

Explain Chicago?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence

New study guys.

...researchers from Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health studied information from all 50 states between 2007 to 2010, analyzing all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and data on firearm laws compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.

Ok, bring on them anecdotes :lol: :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I reject any theory that presents "more" laws as a panacea as opposed to "effective" laws.

[hcap]

Explain Chicago?Explain
gun deaths: 2,517 since Newtown total nationwide, only 67 in Chicago

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html

Chicago is not the only place guns kill and most inner cities suffer from more conditions conducive to crime, and trafficking in guns from nearby places with less restrictions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-chicago-gun-laws-cant-stem-fatal-shots.html?pagewanted=all

"This shows a need for strict, uniform national gun laws to eliminate the current patchwork of state and local rules that allow guns to flow into this city from outside."

Chicago is like a house with two parents that may try to have good rules and do what they can, but it’s like you’ve got this single house sitting on a whole block where there’s anarchy,” said the Rev. Ira J. Acree, one among a group of pastors here who have marched and gathered signatures for an end to so much shooting. “Chicago is an argument for laws that are statewide or, better yet, national.”

Chicago’s experience reveals the complications inherent in carrying out local gun laws around the nation. Less restrictive laws in neighboring communities and states not only make guns easy to obtain nearby, but layers of differing laws — local and state — make it difficult to police violations.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

"This shows a need for strict, uniform national gun laws to eliminate the current patchwork of state and local rules that allow guns to flow into this city from outside."

Curious... are you opposed to the marijuana legalization policies, whether medicinal or recreational, over the last decade or so?

Do the Feds need to step up enforcement of their own drug laws because the "patchwork" of laws among states is allowing the drug trade to more easily move grass from a state that allows use and possession to those that strictly do not?

[hcap]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/15/1599631/no-chicago-isnt-proof-that-gun-regulation-doesnt-work/

...Enabling middlemen to supply the criminals in Chicago with guns they purchased elsewhere. Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois. And even if the state had stricter gun laws, Illinois is not an island either. The remaining fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state, most significantly from nearby Indiana and distant Mississippi — neither of which are known for their strict gun laws.

It’s also important to put Chicago’s very recent increase in gun violence in perspective. Data from the University of Chicago Crime Lab’s Harold Pollack shows that this uptick, while certainly worrying, isn’t anything like a return to the historic peaks during America’s crime wave. Pollack notes that “Chicago ranks 79th on Neighborhood Scout’s list of the 100 most dangerous places to live in America…the idea that Chicago faces a unique or unprecedented rise in homicides is incorrect. Our problems are all too familiar and chronic throughout much of urban America.” Chicago, following the national trend, has experienced a significant downturn in homicides in the past decade and a half:

Read the rest.

[hcap]

No, I do not oppose marijuana legalization. Nor taxing marijuana. Sensible regulations and legalization would end some of the idiocy of the war on drugs.

Prostitution. Fine. But regulations as well. Medical exams would be quite useful

Nor, do I think pot or hookers pose any major threats to the user(s) :)

Hard drugs are a bit more difficult to deal with.

[johnhannibalsmith]

No, I do not oppose marijuana legalization. ...

I figured, and I agree, but I think you know where I was trying to go with it.

Conservative opponents of liberal reformist drug laws use exactly the same argument that you present to absolve strict jurisdictional gun laws as being ineffective. "Its not the fault of our draconian drug laws that we have a drug violence problem, it's the fault of Colorado's (or California's or Washington's or....) laws impacting us, and we need the federal government to step in and supercede state laws that allow for permissiveness."

[hcap]

Inappropriate** analogy.

But I am glad we agree on legalization.

**Let's change inappropriate to "unduly stretched" :)

[johnhannibalsmith]

Inappropriate** analogy.

But I am glad we agree on legalization.

**Let's change inappropriate to "unduly stretched" :)

Imperfect perhaps, but considering the tie to the drug trade itself and what I have to assume is the largest factor in gun violence in places such as Chicago - the import and sale of drugs - it's probably just nominally stretched.

[hcap]

Imperfect perhaps, but considering the tie to the drug trade itself and what I have to assume is the largest factor in gun violence in places such as Chicago - the import and sale of drugs - it's probably just nominally stretched.I agree. But what are you saying? States should have local jurisdiction vs the all reaching feds? Many types of illegal drugs are regulated at both the federal and state level. Your analogy is correct if heroin was not allowed in Chicago and allowed in surrounding Illinois and nearby states. Drug dealers would purchase it in the surrounding environs or across state lines and traffic it into Chicago the same as guns :) Again, I do not think pot is as dangerous as heroin.

Wouldn't some middle ground make sense? Besides, are laws concerning drugs as variable as gun regulations from state to state? I doubt very much heroin is non regulated in localities near Chicago

[johnhannibalsmith]

I agree. But what are you saying? States should have local jurisdiction vs the all reaching feds? Many types of illegal drugs are regulated at both the federal and state level. Your analogy is correct if heroin was not allowed in Chicago and allowed in surrounding Illinois and nearby states. Drug dealers would purchase it in the surrounding environs or across state lines and traffic it into Chicago the same as guns :) Again, I do not think pot is as dangerous as heroin.

Wouldn't some middle ground make sense? Besides, are laws concerning drugs as variable as gun regulations from state to state? I doubt very much heroin is non regulated in localities near Chicago

I used the example of marijuana legalization for this very specific reason.

I'm not sure if you are injecting (no pun...) heroin into the sidebar here to make a distinction about the inherent dangers of heroin vs. marijuana, but I think all reasonable human being would agree that strictly in terms of pharmacology or societal impact - the use of the drug marijuana is probably among the least harmful substances people ingest daily if we are speaking strictly in terms of health consequences to the user. Obviously, heroin and marijuana don't even belong in the same discussion and the fact that the former is considered as dangerous as the latter by our federal regulators is a joke in itself.

But, with that said, the point was not about the danger of the drug - the drug is irrelevant - the chances of being killed by a rival drug peddler using a gun is, I assume, not much, if any different regardless of which drug is being sold. The drug trade remains dangerous, regardless of whether the drug being traded actually is not.

What I am saying, or better stated, trying to say - is that there is an element of irony in the crusade of marijuana reformists, traditionally a liberal endeavor in that they recognize the sanctity of state's rights on this one issue and view the all-encompassing authority of the fed to supercede the will of the state an obscene overreach. And they do it right. They petition and organize and work very effectively within their states to make the needed change. One state, then two, then five, then maybe someday, forty or so - and once a near consensus of state opinion has adopted a perspective, changing the federal perspective becomes almost academic and inevitable.

But in the meantime, while there isn't nearly as much consensus, it's still a victory for liberals and marijuana reformists to have made important change the effective way, on the state level. And when bordering states, like the crackpots in Arizona where I live refuse to respect the will of voters that supported medicinal marijuana use by referendum and block the enactment of the law at every chance, their objection always hinges in part on the same attitude that gun law reformists fall back upon - that the patchwork of state laws makes it difficult for law enforcement to control the import of marijuana and that we need to strike down the state laws as violating the supremacy clause.

My only point is that the "national gun laws" and "national drug laws" supporters and opponents make for strange bedfellows because they argue from the same position often on the merit of this "patchwork" theory that makes local enforcement difficult or impossible and mitigates any criticisms of the ineffectiveness of whatever the state law happens to be. Yet, the group that calls for national gun laws using this argument roll their eyes with contempts when the drug law crowd presents the identical argument to support overriding federal drug laws.

I need to run off and can't preview this mess to make what probably needs to be fifty edits so that it makes sense, so I'll just happily take my lumps for anything that isn't clear when I sit back down in a little bit. I will say this in closing - less than a century ago, our citizens and leaders were still wise enough to realize that we needed a Constitutional amendment to restrict what liquids people could ingest legally.

I'll read this mess in fifteen minutes and then remember what I meant to say when I began typing.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Boy that really was a mess... :D

Let me just throw one thing out there that probably never materialized in all that the way I intended it and why this started at all:

I just don't like, as the rebuttal to criticisms of failed policy in one jurisdiction, the rationalization that the fault lies with the policy of a neighboring jurisdiction and therefore we need uniformity everywhere.

It may be a somewhat logically sound explanation when framed a particular way, but by extension, it leads to poor policy in many cases and often the same people that argue against it on one front, argue for it on a different front.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Besides, are laws concerning drugs as variable as gun regulations from state to state?...

Oh yeah, forgot to answer this since you asked.

If I get stopped walking home in New York and some overzealous cop decides to harass me and finds 27 grams of pot on my person, I get a ticket and sent on my way (or at least that's how I remember it). If I have the same thing happen while leaving Turf Paradise, I end up under Sheriff Joe's supervision in tent city while awaiting arraignment and probably a fairly stiff punishment compared to the fine I'd pay in Nueva York.

[hcap]

I used the example of marijuana legalization for this very specific reason.

I'm not sure if you are injecting (no pun...) heroin into the sidebar here to make a distinction about the inherent dangers of heroin vs. marijuana, but I think all reasonable human being would agree that strictly in terms of pharmacology or societal impact - the use of the drug marijuana is probably among the least harmful substances people ingest daily if we are speaking strictly in terms of health consequences to the user. Obviously, heroin and marijuana don't even belong in the same discussion and the fact that the former is considered as dangerous as the latter by our federal regulators is a joke in itself.

But, with that said, the point was not about the danger of the drug - the drug is irrelevant - the chances of being killed by a rival drug peddler using a gun is, I assume, not much, if any different regardless of which drug is being sold. The drug trade remains dangerous, regardless of whether the drug being traded actually is not.

What I am saying, or better stated, trying to say - is that there is an element of irony in the crusade of marijuana reformists, traditionally a liberal endeavor in that they recognize the sanctity of state's rights on this one issue and view the all-encompassing authority of the fed to supercede the will of the state an obscene overreach. And they do it right. They petition and organize and work very effectively within their states to make the needed change. One state, then two, then five, then maybe someday, forty or so - and once a near consensus of state opinion has adopted a perspective, changing the federal perspective becomes almost academic and inevitable.

But in the meantime, while there isn't nearly as much consensus, it's still a victory for liberals and marijuana reformists to have made important change the effective way, on the state level. And when bordering states, like the crackpots in Arizona where I live refuse to respect the will of voters that supported medicinal marijuana use by referendum and block the enactment of the law at every chance, their objection always hinges in part on the same attitude that gun law reformists fall back upon - that the patchwork of state laws makes it difficult for law enforcement to control the import of marijuana and that we need to strike down the state laws as violating the supremacy clause.

My only point is that the "national gun laws" and "national drug laws" supporters and opponents make for strange bedfellows because they argue from the same position often on the merit of this "patchwork" theory that makes local enforcement difficult or impossible and mitigates any criticisms of the ineffectiveness of whatever the state law happens to be. Yet, the group that calls for national gun laws using this argument roll their eyes with contempts when the drug law crowd presents the identical argument to support overriding federal drug laws.

I need to run off and can't preview this mess to make what probably needs to be fifty edits so that it makes sense, so I'll just happily take my lumps for anything that isn't clear when I sit back down in a little bit. I will say this in closing - less than a century ago, our citizens and leaders were still wise enough to realize that we needed a Constitutional amendment to restrict what liquids people could ingest legally.

I'll read this mess in fifteen minutes and then remember what I meant to say when I began typing.I understand your objection. But there are some difference between the left wanting state jurisdiction and legalization of pot and the same or similar lefties wanting federal jurisdiction nationwide on guns.

First the obvious. Yes liberals do not speak with one voice on pot and drugs. ....

Although the left is similar, it is non monolithic. And not all are identical hippies stoners still lost at Woodstock. (that is not so bad :) ) Different liberals are not in lock step. As the same for conservatives. You are right, In a sense ironic, but not necessarily self- contradictory. There are many interstate movements that are also supported by liberals. But obviously, state activists are making news and are more successful, because the long haul (federal legalization) is much tougher. So it is not a state rights vs federal authoritarian issue, it is a practical one of doing what CAN be accomplished

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=5&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=National%20%20legalization%20pot%20organiza tions&tok=fkHlehopL_YZW4YivnQIiA&pq=national%20pro%20legalization%20pot%20organizat ions&cp=9&gs_id=3br&xhr=t&q=National%20legalization%20pot%20organizations&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=National+legalization+pot+organizations&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.dmQ&fp=ac2a7cdc11b8b64e&biw=768&bih=503&bs=1

I do not agree with your assumption that... the point was not about the danger of the drug - the drug is irrelevant - the chances of being killed by a rival drug peddler using a gun is, I assume, not much, if any different regardless of which drug is being sold. The drug trade remains dangerous, regardless of whether the drug being traded actually is not.In a theoretical vacuum yes. Practically, we will have a much harder time legalizing heroin and/or cocaine in the same way we can (and will) legalize pot. Never is too strong. Hardly ever maybe? Which is why I shifted to heroin in my above post

If both pot smokers and drug dealers could buy marijuana legally nearby the violence would certainly defuse some. Drug dealers would fight to protect their remaining turf for those products not as easily available. Of course if we did legalize hard drugs-even if heavily regulated-the same would occur. Less drug cartels, less drug wars and less violence. But because hard drugs have deadlier consequences and side effects the point is moot. It will never happen---certainly not soon.

I appreciate the irony and apparent hypocritical stoned lefty hippies you mention, but my main point about trafficking in guns from nearby less restrictive surroundings is still valid and pretty much deflates "the Chicago is proof that more regulations don't work" meme

[johnhannibalsmith]

Just to clarify - because I can't tell if you are being facetious or actually think that you are reflecting my impression of what type of person supports liberal marijuana reform - I'm not casting those people as "stoned hippies" or whatever. I tried to make it clear that it has been a "traditionally liberal perspective" while those that support liberal gun regulation is a "traditionally conservative perspective".

There is obviously cross-over on both sides and in parallel fashion, there is a larger pool of what I guess to use political speak - moderates - that are traditionally conservative but do not oppose stronger gun regulation nor do they support the drug policies of the last half-century.

I happen to believe, and have stated so here in the past I believe, that probably the best political activists since the civil rights movement have been the marijuana reformists. They have done an amazing job on all fronts and I have tremendous respect for their methodology - not whining and crying and extorting federal representatives - but organizing and getting the petitions and putting it to ballot for referendum at the state level, making changes to the code of law properly, and have done so with a rather impressive ability to fight the battle at exactly the right moment and with an effectiveness that makes so-called political geniuses look pretty lame. For a bunch of dopey stoners, they have an impressive track record of understanding how to influence and change policy in a way that I respect for its adherence to what I consider the intended role of government, redress, and policy change.

[hcap]

Oh yeah, forgot to answer this since you asked.

If I get stopped walking home in New York and some overzealous cop decides to harass me and finds 27 grams of pot on my person, I get a ticket and sent on my way (or at least that's how I remember it). If I have the same thing happen while leaving Turf Paradise, I end up under Sheriff Joe's supervision in tent city while awaiting arraignment and probably a fairly stiff punishment compared to the fine I'd pay in Nueva York.Again, as I just said there is a difference between pot and heroin practically in our gun debate. In both situations you just mentioned, and it was 27 grams (or an ounce I think) of heroin instead,you will be locked up. I think in both we are talking felony. Of course it is also lawyer dependent and therefore wealth dependent. Changes for first time offenders though.

Besides what do you expect about pot law in Arizona?
Remember NY is an enlightened blue state :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

Facetious. And joking about a previous life many of us shared a while back.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Again, as I just said there is a difference between pot and heroin practically in our gun debate. In both situations you just mentioned, and it was 27 grams (or an ounce I think) of heroin insteadyou will be locked up. I think in both we are talking felony. Of course it is also lawyer dependent and therefore wealth dependent. Changes for first time offenders though.

Besides what do you expect about pot law in Arizona?
Remember NY is an enlightened blue state :lol: :lol:

I'm avoiding the heroin comparison because I don't see any way to compare those that support heroin reform and gun reform - because I don't see anyone, well, other than the most libertarian of libertarians, a fraction of a fraction of a fraction - it's just not even a policy issue at this point the way that marijuana reform is and therefore makes it nearly impossible to contrast in any way to gun reform and the habits or methods of one versus the other.

I may just be missing your point altogether on how heroin got into the discussion.

And as for Arizona... welp... it's just like New York, but in the inverse. We have all kinds of wonderful freedoms - no helmet laws, hardly any gun laws at all, blah blah blah, but we fall over sideways over the dangers of pot. In New York, hey, we're going to dump your bag of grass on the sidewalk and tell you to behave, but dammit, don't you think for a second about ingesting too much soda or sugar...

There's stupidity and hypocrisy everywhere... at least I have hope that Arizonans will ditch the stupid drug laws and keep the helmet laws... New York will probably ban motorcycles... :lol:

[elysiantraveller]

...

...

If you take your example, JHS, to the extreme you essentially expose the hypocrisy of the jurisdiction argument with the left. Assume for a second you do have sweeping and cohesive state and federal regulations of the control, sale, and manufacture of firearms where would they come from then?...

Out of the country, just like the illegal narcotics trade that, according to the left, is simply "just too expensive" to keep fighting...

Gun-running still is one of the largest practiced forms of smuggling in the world.

[johnhannibalsmith]

If you take your example, JHS, to the extreme ....

Yeah, we didn't get that far and I thought we were behaving nicely and finding some common ground to a degree despite some sidebars. I figured maybe the thread would find its way there eventually. :)

[Jay Trotter]

Very nice to see a good solid back and forth on a subject without all the disrespect and name calling, etc.

Well down johnhannibalsmith and hcap! :jump:

[johnhannibalsmith]

SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) - The Idaho House of Representatives on Monday approved a largely symbolic measure that would make it a crime for state and local police to enforce new federal firearms restrictions, in a show of defiance against gun control proposals from the Obama administration.

The measure cleared the Republican-controlled House by a 55-13 vote and now heads to the state Senate.

Under the bill, state or local officials who help enforce any new federal gun limits could face up to a year in prison and a maximum fine of $1,000. The legislative gambit represents the latest effort by lawmakers in certain states, mostly in the West and South, to undercut new federal gun restrictions even before they might become part of U.S. law.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/12/us-usa-guns-idaho-idUSBRE92B04I20130312

[hcap]

The Gun Report: March 13, 2013

¶Take a close look at the first item here. It shows exactly how perverse the gun show loophole is—which, of course, has been staunchly defended over the years by the National Rifle Association. The killer, a felon who had just been released from prison, actually researched gun shows either just before or just after he killed his grandparents so that he could buy a gun without a background check. It boggles the mind. But no state can prevent someone from buying a gun elsewhere and bringing it across state lines. And the beat goes on.

¶Here is today’s sampling of gun violence.

¶—Joe Nocera and Jennifer Mascia

¶Michael Boysen, a felon suspected of killing his grandparents Friday night after they threw him a party upon his release from prison, was captured after a standoff with police at an Oregon hotel. Boysen, 26, was recently released from prison after a burglary conviction. Detectives learned from a search of computer data that Boysen had researched gun shows in Washington and Nevada, where sellers are not required to conduct background checks or maintain sale records. Boysen was apprehended after a standoff at the Westshore Oceanfront Suites in Lincoln City, Ore.

¶—Seattle Post-Intelligencer

¶A Florida woman allegedly shot and killed her ex-boyfriend during an unplanned encounter at a post office. Arianne Myles, 22, was driving near a post office in Jacksonville on Sunday afternoon when, by chance, she saw her ex-boyfriend, 23-year-old Harold Davis Jr.. She pulled her car behind his, retrieved a weapon from the back seat, confronted him and shot him numerous times. Police arrested her on the scene. Davis’s family said Myles had a history of harassing her ex.

¶—News4Jax

¶52-year-old Teresa Black was shot and killed by her son Tuesday morning. 22-year-old Brant Davis also injured his half-brother, 19-year-old Taylor Black, in the attack in a home in Carlin, Nev. The police chief said Davis was dazed and didn’t answer any questions about the incident.

¶—2News

¶A Moses Lake, Wash., boy, upset that he’d been grounded, is accused of shooting his parents with what police called a “family weapon”—a .22 caliber revolver kept in “a gun cabinet of sorts.” All six rounds were fired. Both parents were shot in the head but are expected to survive. The boy, 14, is being held on $500,000 bail and the prosecutor is deciding whether to send the case to adult court.

¶—MyNorthwest.com


A lot more at the NYT...
http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/the-gun-report-march-13-2013/

Gee. Not Chicago! Again there have been less that 70 gun deaths in Chicago since Newtown and something like 2600 nationwide

[JustRalph]

:sleeping:

Big deal...........some idiots killed somebody.

25 kids were killed in car wrecks on Saturday alone.

Let me know when you want to change the driving age to 30

[hcap]

:sleeping:

Big deal...........some idiots killed somebody.

25 kids were killed in car wrecks on Saturday alone.

Let me know when you want to change the driving age to 30
And if we did not have licensing, drivers ed, strict DWI laws, insurance, rules of the road, air bags and other safety improvements, it would be at least 10x worse. Besides when was the last time you rode an assault rifle to work or school. If you compare man hours in cars doing necessary tasks versus man hours with guns, I would think the number of incidents per man./gun hour is many times the rate of man/vehicle hour.

Btw the Times publishes that column often. There still is only anecdotal instances of gun defense incidents. You still have no central record keeping agency supporting your case.

[johnhannibalsmith]

And if we did not have licensing, drivers ed, strict DWI laws, insurance, rules of the road, air bags and other safety improvements, it would be at least 10x worse. ...

All those improvements are making the drivers worse by the second. My personal data, which I keep track of several times a day using my finger, suggests it may be a wash. :D

[JustRalph]

And if we did not have licensing, drivers ed, strict DWI laws, insurance, rules of the road, air bags and other safety improvements, it would be at least 10x worse. Besides when was the last time you rode an assault rifle to work or school. If you compare man hours in cars doing necessary tasks versus man hours with guns, I would think the number of incidents per man./gun hour is many times the rate of man/vehicle hour.

Btw the Times publishes that column often. There still is only anecdotal instances of gun defense incidents. You still have no central record keeping agency supporting your case.

I don't need a "case". I have a "right" that I am defending.

End of story. We can agree to disagree.

[elysiantraveller]

I don't need a "case". I have a "right" that I am defending.

End of story. We can agree to disagree.

I don't get why the 2nd Amendment always needs a burden of proof to defend its existence... none of the others do.

[Tom]

Perhaps we should insist hcap prove a case for his posts....you know, the 1st amendment.

[hcap]

You guys do realize when the 2nd amendment was ratified, you could have made a serous case that knifes killed as many as muskets. :)

I do not believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that gun regulations are unconstitutional.

[Tom]

They are.
Read the amendment.

[elysiantraveller]

You guys do realize when the 2nd amendment was ratified, you could have made a serous case that knifes killed as many as muskets.

Pretty sure those are included under the 2nd Amendment as well... your point?

[hcap]

Pretty sure those are included under the 2nd Amendment as well... your point?I do not believe we are facing the same degree of danger and hazard we did with the lowly musket. Things change and as I just said regulation of firearms (and knifes for that matter) are not unconstitutional

[johnhannibalsmith]

HzWGgEGj_aI

[hcap]

Muskets Circa 1971

/qiiDbB-Ur8c?

[hcap]

They are.
Read the amendment.Hey Perry, would you like to prove that?
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.

[elysiantraveller]

I do not believe we are facing the same degree of danger and hazard we did with the lowly musket. Things change and as I just said regulation of firearms (and knifes for that matter) are not unconstitutional

:confused:

Lowly musket... LOL...

Didn't you just a couple of posts ago make the point the "lowly musket" was an absolute killing machine back then and that most murders happened by blade...?

Which also was protected under the 2nd Amendment?

[elysiantraveller]

Hey Perry, would you like to prove that?

Do you now want to debate the Supreme Court's interpretation of that or yours? My guess is not the Supreme Courts...

Does that refer to an individual's right or no?...

[hcap]

:confused:

Didn't you just a couple of posts ago make the point the "lowly musket" was an absolute killing machine back then and that most murders happened by blade...?

Which also was protected under the 2nd Amendment?

PS) Where I live most hunters use that "lowly musket" to kill deer as opposed to the shotgun, that Joe Biden loves, to hunt deer because of its superiority...My point was that Muskets are less lethal than modern firearms, and the silly argument made today by gun people that knifes and hammers are of equal danger might have made sense then.

[JustRalph]

I do not believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that gun regulations are unconstitutional.

Try this one :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

[johnhannibalsmith]

Muskets Circa 1971

...

Such a great clip... :lol: ... thanks

[elysiantraveller]

My point was that Muskets are less lethal than modern firearms, and the silly argument made today by gun people that knifes and hammers are of equal danger might have made sense then.

No your points are of use when they suit you... not when you are called out on them.

I would post Supreme Court decisions but JR has already taken care of that for me.

[Dahoss2002]

I do not believe we are facing the same degree of danger and hazard we did with the lowly musket. Things change and as I just said regulation of firearms (and knifes for that matter) are not unconstitutional
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
The right of the American people to protect themselves from tyranny. It is within your right to depend on the police or government if you wish. Joe Biden might come and fire some warning shots on your behalf.