Not One More !

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well, thank you for your honesty. So far, psychiatrists, clergyman, have not been able to answer that either.

One of my brothers did become a professional criminal. He was in prison for 25yrs after one of his "friends" turned him in. He broke into many homes and never got caught by the homeowners, who were mostly lawyers. He had the "Robin Hood" thing.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
You said 'if there is no weapon', I asked if they had a weapon how do you defend yourself?

How can they have a weapon if theoretically there's no weapon.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
To answer your question I would need to see the data on overall homicides that they used. They are taking one aspect, homicides by firearm, and extrapolating a hypothesis. The true value of that study would be 'did they increase or did they move from one method to another (firearms)?'

now you are starting to understand, you ppl should start making studies, analyzing data and find solutions. It doesn't mean guns would be totally banned. You need to regulate in consequence of the study results and urban safety.

Not stick the head to the sand with TABU issues. Demand for DEBATE.

a reply to: MOMof3

He is lucky he was never shot.
If it was my home he robbed and I was home he would not be serving 25 years that's for sure.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
[

and then again insults and attacks ...

Pointing out your poor behavior is not an insult or attack, it is pointing out your poor behavior.

Yes, that's your subjective view. But the truth is that you have a poor behavior because you attacked/insulted me.

originally posted by: voyger2
Yes, that's your subjective view. But the truth is that you have a poor behavior because you attacked/insulted me.

If you do not want people pointing out that you have poor behavior then maybe you should stop acting like you do.

You still have not answered the question. If someone enters your home with a weapon how do you effectively defend yourself?

I think the reason you will not answer this is there is not way for you to defend yourself if you also do not have a weapon but feel free to give it a try.

originally posted by: voyger2

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
[

and then again insults and attacks ...

Pointing out your poor behavior is not an insult or attack, it is pointing out your poor behavior.

Yes, that's your subjective view. But the truth is that you have a poor behavior because you attacked/insulted me.

Just like you are doing to our RIGHTS!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

yes I did: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: thesaneone

I'm not doing anything to your rights:
UMass-Lowell survey shows most Americans support increased gun restrictions
«“The most striking finding in this survey is that the public appears to be far more supportive of reforming our gun laws than Congress appears willing or able to respond,” Dyck said.

“The policy window on reforming gun laws may have closed in the wake of a series of gun-violence tragedies in the last few years, but the support for change still strongly exists among the public,” he said.»

www.masslive.com...

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

yes I did: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So your answer is not grounded in reality.

Your hypothetical world is one where weapons do not exist.
Rocks are made of marshmallows perhaps?
And steel is soft like taffy, thereby making it impossible to fabricate a gun in a garage.... which is possible in the real world.

a reply to: MOMof3

Glad to hear you made it.

Now tell that to the multiple women who don't. The one's beaten so severely that they've suffered brain damage, or their bodies broken. Just because you got lucky, and had the brains/courage to take advantage of that luck, don't think that every situation will end like yours did.

Most women aren't a physical match for a male. That firearm that you wished you had at the time might have saved them a lot of pain and anguish. Or they might be alive to refute your contention. But, alas, they aren't... Alive, I mean.

a reply to: butcherguy

DEBATE. NO TABU's.

this is interesting:
Federal Appeals Court Upholds New York Gun Licensing Law
thinkprogress.org...

The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to carry a firearm under certain circumstances, but this right is far from unlimited.

In an opinion upholding a New York law that prevents most people from obtaining a concealed firearm license unless they can demonstrate “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession,” the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explained that lawmakers’ power to regulate guns outside the home remains quite robust:

(..)

Though the Second Circuit opinion clearly indicates that firearm regulation outside the home will be subject to more rigorous judicial scrutiny than ordinary economic regulations, it also makes clear that lawmakers have a great deal of discretion in enacting gun laws provided that those laws do not intrude on the core right to self-defense in the home.

a reply to: voyger2

One poll does not make for reality. Pols can be scewed to project any result you want.

There are polls, statistics and damned lies.

There are many polls out there that would blow this poll out of the water. But I really have a tendency to look at them in the same manner.

Is this some kind of school project and your teacher told you that you have to come back, because last I saw, you had conceded the debate and the pro side won.

a reply to: voyger2
I thought the question was about defending oneself against a home invasion?
The New York law addresses carrying a weapon outside the home... hence the term Concealed Firearm associated with the license.
You didn't address what world it is that has no weapons... or the inability to make one.

DEBATE. NO TABU's.

Not much of a debate if it isn't covering what takes place in reality.
Unless you are debating one fictional superhero vs a different fictional superhero.

a reply to: voyger2

for fracks sake quit mocking the mentally ill like we are frigging lepers

being mentally ill does not make you a psychopath,being mentally ill does not make you a serial killer or a misogynist and being mentally ill shout not require you to wear a sign........do you not realize how insulting this kind of crap is! you are implying an entire culture of people are a threat to you just because we dont know who could possibly be mentally ill? and seem to be hinting that we all need to wear signs....perhaps little yellow stars would do that list our entire medical history so you can feel safer....you act like we are to be feared but it was your kind who locked up mine experimented on us forcibly sterilized us told us we were unfit for breeding and procreation,locked us up with out any hope of ever breathing free again and its US YOU have to be afraid of? about 70 of "my kind" have committed these acts you fear,THOUSANDS of my kind were locked up by yours with limited trials and rights had their freedom taken away and daily we are treated like monsters and lepers,had our brains dissected and electrodes put in our brains all under the guise of improving the human race and "safety"

en.wikipedia.org... sorry for long quote but its wiki so i dont think they care about how much i quote

Unfit vs. Fit Individuals Both class and race factored into eugenic definitions of “fit” and “unfit.” By using intelligence testing, American eugenicists asserted that social mobility was indicative of one’s genetic fitness.[45] This reaffirmed the existing class and racial hierarchies and explained why the upper-to-middle class was predominately white. Middle-to-upper class status was a marker of “superior strains.”[28] In contrast, eugenicists believed poverty to be a characteristic of genetic inferiority, which meant that that those deemed “unfit” were predominately of the lower classes.[28] Because class status designated some more fit than others, eugenicists treated upper and lower class women differently. Positive eugenicists, who promoted procreation among the fittest in society, encouraged middle class women to bear more children. Between 1900 and 1960, Eugenicists appealed to middle class white women to become more “family minded,” and to help better the race.[46] To this end, eugenicists often denied middle and upper class women sterilization and birth control.[47] Since poverty was associated with prostitution and “mental idiocy,” women of the lower classes were the first to be deemed “unfit” and “promiscuous.”[28] These women, who were predominately immigrants or women of color[citation needed], were discouraged from bearing children, and were encouraged to use birth control. Compulsory sterilization See also: Compulsory sterilization § United States In 1907, Indiana passed the first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law in the world. Thirty U.S. states would soon follow their lead.[48][49] Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,[50] the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.[51] Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. Although compulsory sterilization is now considered an abuse of human rights, Buck v. Bell was never overturned, and Virginia did not repeal its sterilization law until 1974.[52] The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[53] Beginning around 1930, there was a steady increase in the percentage of women sterilized, and in a few states only young women were sterilized. From 1930 to the 1960s, sterilizations were performed on many more institutionalized women than men.[28] By 1961, 61 percent of the 62,162 total eugenic sterilizations in the United States were performed on women.[28] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane.[54][55] Men and women were compulsorily sterilized for different reasons. Men were sterilized to treat their aggression and to eliminate their criminal behavior, while women were sterilized to control the results of their sexuality.[28] Since women bore children, eugenicists held women more accountable than men for the reproduction of the less “desirable” members of society.[28] Eugenicists therefore predominately targeted women in their efforts to regulate the birth rate, to “protect” white racial health, and weed out the “defectives” of society.[28] A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.[56] Although the following events were not explicitly justified through the by-now-discredited eugenics movement, they certainly fit the older pattern. In 1970’s, several activists and women’s rights groups discovered several physicians to be performing coerced sterilizations of specific ethnic groups of society. All were abuses of poor, nonwhite, or mentally retarded women, while no abuses against white or middle-class women were recorded.[57] For example, in 1972, United States Senate committee testimony brought to light that at least 2,000 involuntary sterilizations had been performed on poor black women without their consent or knowledge. An investigation revealed that the surgeries were all performed in the South, and were all performed on black welfare mothers with multiple children. Testimony revealed that many of these women were threatened with an end to their welfare benefits until they consented to sterilization.[58] These surgeries were instances of sterilization abuse, a term applied to any sterilization performed without the consent or knowledge of the recipient, or in which the recipient is pressured into accepting the surgery. Because the funds used to carry out the surgeries came from the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, the sterilization abuse raised older suspicions, especially amongst the black community, that “federal programs were underwriting eugenicists who wanted to impose their views about population quality on minorities and poor women.”[28] Native American women were also victims of sterilization abuse up into the 1970s.[59] The organization WARN (Women of All Red Nations) publicized that Native American women were threatened that, if they had more children, they would be denied welfare benefits. The Indian Health Service also repeatedly refused to deliver Native American babies until their mothers, in labor, consented to sterilization. Many Native American women unknowingly gave consent, since directions were not given in their native language. According to the General Accounting Office, an estimate of 3,406 Indian women were sterilized.[59] The General Accounting Office stated that the Indian Health Service had not followed the necessary regulations, and that the “informed consent forms did not adhere to the standards set by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).”[60] Euthanasia programs See also: Euthanasia in the United States One of the methods that was commonly suggested to get rid of "inferior" populations was euthanasia. A 1911 Carnegie Institute report mentioned euthanasia as one of its recommended "solutions" to the problem of cleansing society of unfit genetic attributes. The most commonly suggested method was to set up local gas chambers. However, many in the eugenics movement did not believe that Americans were ready to implement a large-scale euthanasia program, so many doctors had to find clever ways of subtly implementing eugenic euthanasia in various medical institutions. For example, a mental institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk infected with tuberculosis (reasoning that genetically fit individuals would be resistant), resulting in 30-40% annual death rates. Other doctors practiced euthanasia through various forms of lethal neglect.[61] In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic "mercy killings" in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize "imbeciles" and other defectives. The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938.[62] Overall, however, euthanasia was marginalized in the U.S., motivating people to turn to forced segregation and sterilization programs as a means for keeping the "unfit" from reproducing.[63]

www.theguardian.com...

Does the past matter? When confronted by facts that are uncomfortable, but which relate to people long dead, should we put them aside and, to use a phrase very much of our time, move on? And there's a separate, but related, question: how should we treat the otherwise admirable thought or writings of people when we discover that those same people also held views we find repugnant? Those questions are triggered in part by the early responses to Pantheon, my new novel published this week under the pseudonym Sam Bourne. The book is a thriller, set in the Oxford and Yale of 1940, but it rests on several true stories. Among those is one of the grisliest skeletons in the cupboard of the British intellectual elite, a skeleton that rattles especially loudly inside the closet of the left. It is eugenics, the belief that society's fate rested on its ability to breed more of the strong and fewer of the weak. So-called positive eugenics meant encouraging those of greater intellectual ability and "moral worth" to have more children, while negative eugenics sought to urge, or even force, those deemed inferior to reproduce less often or not at all. The aim was to increase the overall quality of the national herd, multiplying the thoroughbreds and weeding out the runts.

a reply to: voyger2

I really don't know that bringing US court decisions into the argument really helps your cause. The court system has long held that the government does have some limited authority to regulate ownership of firearms to prevent dangerous individuals or particularly dangerous weapons from the hands of individuals. However, it has also held that individuals do, in fact, have a right to arms in their own homes for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense, and, in overturning the ban on handguns in Washington DC, that laws against weapons in 'common use' were unconstitutional.

a reply to: MOMof3
fine ill ask you the question no one seems to answer again as perhaps you in your infinite wisdom can answer it

how does any one propose to introduce legislation that bans a currently federally protected class of people (disabled) from a constitutional right? would people support a law saying blacks or other minorities cant own weapons? how about no guns for gays or women? well all of those groups are all in the same protected class group,do not get me wrong i do not think every one should be able to own a gun (we have laws that decide that currently) but how do you take an entire amendment from away from an entire subclass in America? ill wait as no one ever seems to want to answer this question just demonize the mentally ill as savage unstable killers of innocents


en.wikipedia.org...

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

en.wikipedia.org...

In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law: Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964 National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964 Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Individual states can and do create other protected classes, which are protected under that state's law.

added for more info on subject
blog.nami.org...

In 2007, NAMI testified before Congress, explaining how current definitions in the law are vague, leading to holes in compliance and enforcement. To date, there has been no effort in Congress to change the law—thoughtfully and carefully—in a way that is not only overly broad, but also avoids unfair, damaging discrimination. One paramount concern is to avoid creating a situation where people are in fact discouraged from getting help when they need it because of speculative fear over stigma. It’s worth having public dialogue about making gun laws more effective. But extreme, broad-brushed rhetoric that ignores medical science, modern definitions and actual risk factors will only detract from the discussion.

www.youtube.com...
one mans take on the matter but the fact mentally ill people are much more likely to be VICTIMS of violence not the perpetrators of violence

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

yes I did: www.abovetopsecret.com...

No you did not. All you said is 'what if theoretically there is no weapon', well in my question there is a weapon. How do you defend against it?

a reply to: seagull

Actually, I don't believe it was luck at all. I think it was God so I could tell my story of deserting fathers and poverty. I am in the process of writing it all down to pass on to my grandchildren.

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: thesaneone



I'm not doing anything to your rights:

UMass-Lowell survey shows most Americans support increased gun restrictions

America's laws aren't a "majority rules" institution. If they were Separate but Equal would have remained the law of the land for decades longer, the Citizen's United decision would have been exactly the opposite of what it was, we'd have no income taxes, NAFTA never would have passed, and grass would be decriminalized on the federal level. The SOLE litmus test for American laws is whether they violate the Constitution.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Mass killings are pretty rare and religion and dysfunctional relationships are as equally to blame in many of them as mental illness you are right in fact most mentally ill abhor violence,so what creates these monsters the answer these days can be both spiritual or technological.The vast majority of gun crime is done by sociopaths on drugs or just because they are sociopaths or criminals.To ban sociopaths you'd have to treble the size of the prison system,its a societal problem not just a mental health one.