It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: WeRpeons
So just because Obama didn't make the right move, let's not move on and make them illegal? We can't continue to condemn past presidents for their poor and incompetent decisions. Americans should be demanding better from their representatives and president.
I still say, any legislation that will impact the lives of Americans, such as Healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, Welfare Reform and gun control, should be put on the ballot for "all Americans to decide." Our representatives don't enact legislation based upon concern for the American people but rather for political donors, lobbyists, pressure from party leaders and how a particular legislation will affect the profits of the corporations involved.
originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: FyreByrd
It goes without saying that making a mistake in this regard will subject you to the full legal consequences of such action. Because of that (in my humble opinion), such motivations are even more admirable. When a projectile leaves your firearm, you are totally responsible for it. Fortunately, this type of incident is extremely rare and is significantly outnumbered by armed citizens who were able to react quickly and safely to stop a deadly threat.
I am one citizen who made the personal choice to carry a firearm, and accept all of the consequences and responsibilities that go along with that. My greatest responsibility is to ensure that my firearm is under my control at all times, including during a high stress or life threatening event. This means not engaging a deadly threat, even when justified, if it will put innocent lives in jeopardy. It also means ensuring that no one can gain access to my weapon in order to cause harm to myself or others. I have personally invested a lot of money into firearms training, and do so with the belief that it may one day save someone's life. I hope that day never comes, and in all likelihood it won't. I do believe that armed citizens make dangerous individuals think twice before trying to victimize innocent people.
That being said, I would love to see free programs offered to armed citizens that provide safety awareness, legal concepts and practice firing under simulated stressful situations. Police officers do a great job, but it is statistically unlikely one will be present in time to actually interdict a deadly threat and prevent them from carrying out their intended atrocities. Armed citizens have saved many lives (including their own), and most do not take carrying lightly.
There is no doubt that certain risks also accompany that choice. You could make a mistake, and wind up losing everything (including your freedom, your possessions or even your life). I fully respect anyone who has evaluated those risks and compared them to the likely threats they will face and determined they didn't need/want to carry a firearm. It is just my personal opinion that these individuals are a "net gain" for society as a whole.
Patients pay a high price for being shot. On average, those treated in emergency departments incurred $5,254 in charges. If they stayed in hospital overnight, charges were far higher – $95,887 on average.
Patients who stayed overnight in hospital were more likely to be discharged to expensive rehabilitation facilities. About a third of inpatient gunshot victims were discharged to another medical facility and incurred costs of $179,565 on average
originally posted by: JBurns
The scenario described is extremely rare (I don't recall any such incidents), and I only described intentional injuries because hitting the wrong target (crossfire, over penetration, etc) is really only possible if you are attempting to shoot a deadly threat and miss, striking the wrong person.
RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence.
This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides.
Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty.
For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.
On April 10, 2006, John Lott filed suit for defamation against Steven Levitt and HarperCollins Publishers over the book Freakonomics and against Levitt over a series of emails to John McCall. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt and coauthor Stephen J. Dubner claimed that the results of Lott's research in More Guns, Less Crime had not been replicated by other academics. In the emails to economist John McCall, who had pointed to a number of papers in different academic publications that had replicated Lott's work, Levitt wrote that the work by several authors supporting Lott in a special 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics had not been peer reviewed, Lott had paid the University of Chicago Press to publish the papers, and that papers with results opposite of Lott's had been blocked from publication in that issue.
A federal judge found that Levitt's replication claim in Freakonomics was not defamation but found merit in Lott's complaint over the email claims.
Levitt settled the second defamation claim by admitting in a letter to John McCall that he himself was a peer reviewer in the 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, that Lott had not engaged in bribery (paying for extra costs of printing and postage for a conference issue is customary), and that he knew that "scholars with varying opinions" (including Levitt himself) had been invited to participate. The Chronicle of Higher Education characterized Levitt's letter as offering "a doozy of a concession."
The dismissal of the first half of Lott's suit was unanimously upheld by The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 11, 2009.[60
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: bgerbger
Really? Generally speaking they tend to end up in jail.
I've never threatened anyone with a gun...and the one time I had to show it, I was scared to death the guy was going to take me up on it...
Get off on it? Not even remotely. Those who do, have issues that need addressing.
The goal of the Second Amendment was to promote state militias for the maintenance of order at a time of political unrest, potential slave revolts and simmering hostilities with both European powers and Native Americans on the frontiers. Indeed, the amendment’s defined purpose was to achieve state “security” against disruptions to the country’s new republican form of government.
In the late Eighteenth Century, the meaning of “bearing” arms also referred to a citizen being part of a militia or army. It didn’t mean that an individual had the right to possess whatever number of high-capacity killing machines that he or she might want. Indeed, the most lethal weapon that early Americans owned was a slow-loading, single-fired musket or rifle.