Important Links

Hock's Blog

Hock's Downloads

CQC-Facebook

Hock's Facebook

Hock's Seminars

Hock's Shopsite

Hock's Web Page


New Products

Combat Kicks VID

Critical Contact VID

Death Grip of Knife VID

Dominant/Counter VID

First Contact VID

Impact Weapons Book

Knife Book

The Other Hand VID


Lauric Enterprises, Inc.
1314 W. McDermott
Ste 106-811
Allen, TX 75013
972-390-1777

 

 

 


W. Hock Hochheim's

           Combat Centric

Talk Forum for Military, Police, Martial Artists and Aware Citizenry



Hock Hochheim's Combat Talk Forum

  • October 22, 2018, 08:53:38 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Historic supreme court decision on gun control  (Read 3524 times)

whitewolf

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 4680
Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« on: June 27, 2008, 01:04:38 AM »

I read today about the historic gun control review by the supreme court=I am glad that it was passed but let us not forget to upgrade the police departments weapons/training/number of officers and the laws that will give them the right to protect them selves and the public they are sworn to  defend. In addition upgrade the checks by law enforcement to preclude convicted felons to be able to purchase a weapon. Yes- i reolize that almost anyone can get a gun if they go to the right place..thats my 2 cents for today--whitewolf (el  lobo blanco)

Logged

Ed Stowers

  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2008, 02:23:38 PM »

It ended that stupid D.C. gun ban, anyway.  And at least it has hopefully put to rest the question of whether or not the 2nd Ammendment applies to a collective or individual right.  SCOTUS came down on the side of an individual right.  I don't think it will slow the gun-haters down much; they are too emotionally involved and they'll start finding loopholes and ways to litigate around it.  But that silly militia thing is no longer a valid reason to make bans, and it probably means the Chicago gun ban is toast next, so good on 'em.  And it may open the way for the passage of a few more gun carry privledges in some anti-gun areas.  It will not increase the number of criminals who have guns--(newsflash: they already have them)--but it may actually increase the number of law abiding citizens who do, so it only helps level the playing field in that regard.  I think the idea of "no safe haven for criminals" is a good thing.  I was getting a bit tired of the states that had no safe havens for law-abiding citizens, only criminals who carried illegally.

I don't know every police officer in country, but I have been one myself and still have several in the family, and they are all pro-carry.  In fact, I don't think I have ever personally met a cop who was anti-gun, at least not in the South.  But maybe that's just me.

On a personal note, from reading what the founding fathers wrote in various papers and such, I have always thought the 2nd Ammendment was written poorly.  I would have been happy with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Period.  But knowing what a bunch of revolutionary upstarts the FF were, I am surprised they didn't write "A well-regulated government, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  That militia word really confused the issue.  It's pretty clear that their intention was to foment armed insurrection against the US government if and when that government became tyrannical (they same way they had against Britain's tyranny), as well as any foreign government that was attempting to invade us (not to mention the whole frontier Indian issues of the day).  Pretty bold words for men forming a government to write.  Even bolder to later ammend to the actual Constituion. 

We are a unique bunch, that's for sure.  I'm not sure everyone is aware of just how historic this ruling was.  The Surpeme Court has always avoided making this ruling throughout its entire history.  But they stood up this time, bit the bullet (pun intended) and made the call.

I think it was the right call.  My hat's off to them.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2008, 02:26:34 PM by Ed Stowers »
Logged

fire

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2008, 09:20:24 PM »

  all the cops I know are also very pro gun- one, my business partner in fact, has been quoted in saying," remember, when you need help, and seconds count, the police are only minutes away"
Logged

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6324
    • www.HocksCQC.com
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2008, 06:00:54 AM »

The thing to hope for next is a few consistant years of either the same level of gun crime or less gun crime. This would further enforce the arguement against the ban.

I am in Washington DC today and one headline newspaper story is...

"Gun Ban Gone, Yet Family Buries Son...." - you know, a kid killed by.... well,. if you read the story, the bad guys/shooters had an illegal gun in gun ban zone ANYWAY!

Hock

Nick Hughes

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
    • Fight Survival
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2008, 09:36:28 AM »

That's a typical leftist press for you...are they suggesting because the ruling went through last week that everyone so entitled has already gone out and bought a weapon for home defense, and all the bad guys have surrendered their illegal weapons?  God theyr'e arseholes.

Nick
Logged
Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking.
--Ferdinand Foch-- at the Battle of the Marne

whitewolf

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 4680
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2008, 06:12:21 AM »

Right--the bad guys just turned in their weapons-i would have to  believe that in DC this minute the bad guys are armed to the teeth weither the city said they could or could not have them.
I would help that as i previously  stated that the PO on the street will be better equipped,trained, backed up and able to defend them selves and the public..
whitewolf (el  lobo blanco)
Logged

rutleddc

  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2008, 02:11:16 PM »

Minnesota is one of the six states in the US that does not allow reserve deputies to carry  firearm (so I have been told). Supposedly it is so that licensed officers are not replaced with reserves, reducing union membership.

All I know is reserves now patrol parks in pairs and gang presence is rapidly rising in the parks (Saint Paul ha cracked down, displacing them to our county). I would feel a lot better if we were armed properly, rather than being told to retreat and call for help from licensed officers - my wife Cyndy would would feel much better as she still thinks she can't replace me.  ;D
Logged
"Ruttles"
David Rutledge

Ed Stowers

  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2008, 02:14:21 PM »

That's crazy.  It's already dangerous enough that I think any law-abiding rational citizen should be armed if they so choose.  But I think it's downright criminal that the law is restricting law enforcement officers in Minnestoa, whether they are reserves or not.  I think any cop anywhere--reserve or not--should be REQUIRED to be armed.  I mean, what good is an unarmed police officer?  He's useless in a gunfight, or a robbery, or any serious confrontation and only another potential victim.

We had a situation like that at a Luby's cafeterai one time down in Texas.  Off-duty officers left their guns in their car not wanting to seem too "aggressive."  They helped no one when a nut crashed hsi truck through the cafeteria and started shooting people.  This case was one of the main ones that got concelaed carry passed in Texas.  Most of the press centered on the inability of the victims to defend themselves.  But I've always thought some should have been on the officers as well, for leaving their guns in their car.

Sometimes unions are good things.  They often get stuff done and stop abuse.  But sometimes they become jsut another political organization that exists to further its power (teacher's unions come to mind here).  Pretty soon if they get too big, they become what they are fighting.  That sounds like what you've got up there.  Good luck!
Logged

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6324
    • www.HocksCQC.com
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2008, 05:52:13 PM »

Report: Half of Gun Deaths are Suicides
By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer

ATLANTA --
The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year - gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 and rejected requirements that firearms have trigger locks or be kept disassembled. The ruling left intact the district's licensing restrictions for gun owners.

One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the district dropped after the ban was adopted. The district has allowed shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.

The American Public Health Association, the American Association of Suicidology and two other groups filed a legal brief supporting the district's ban. The brief challenged arguments that if a gun is not available, suicidal people will just kill themselves using other means.

More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies.

"Other methods are not as lethal," said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

The high court's majority opinion made no mention of suicide. But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer used the word 14 times in voicing concern about the impact of striking down the handgun ban.

"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence," Breyer wrote. Researchers in other fields have raised questions about the public-health findings on guns.

Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University's College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, estimates there are more than 1 million incidents each year in which firearms are used to prevent an actual or threatened criminal attack.

Public-health experts have said the telephone survey methodology Kleck used likely resulted in an overestimate. Both sides agree there has been a significant decline in the last decade in public-health research into gun violence.

The CDC traditionally was a primary funder of research on guns and gun-related injuries, allocating more than $2.1 million a year to such projects in the mid-1990s. But the agency cut back research on the subject after Congress in 1996 ordered that none of the CDC's appropriations be used to promote gun control.

Vernick said the Supreme Court decision underscores the need for further study into what will happen to suicide and homicide rates in the district when the handgun ban is lifted.

Today, the CDC budgets less than $900,000 for firearm-related projects, and most of it is spent to track statistics. The agency no longer funds gun-related policy analysis

Benjamin Liu

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2008, 06:34:57 PM »

IMO the difference in success rates in suicides is more due to intent rather than the means.  According to social science classes I took, women attempt suicide more than men, but men are successful at it more than women, primarily because men choose more violent means.  This is also due to people making an attempt just for attention and people who really want to kill themselves.
Logged

rside

  • Level 1
  • **
  • Posts: 28
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2008, 06:49:14 AM »

DC Council is scrambling here to come up with their new law.  It will involve something like allowing people who register their handguns to keep them in their homes.  Their won't be any carry rights.  They will have to be secured and disassembled or locked while traveling.

As police officers, we're still technically enforcing the old law, as no guns are registered.  The police department is responsible for implementing a registration system.  It's going to be a typical department program-all f'd up.  I won't be anywhere near that.

My personal opinion?  It won't affect crime much in any direction.  You're 3 miles from MD or VA at the most anyway.  No legal carry won't stop street robberies (fairly common.)  I'd like to see it stop some burglaries.  But, like Hock, I'm really interested to see what will happen.  Soon, everyone will be arguing about the statistics.
Logged

Bryant

  • Kung Fu Genius
  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
  • To win in an instant is a superior achievement
    • moy yat ving tsun kung fu
Logged
Proverbs 27:17 - Proverbs 24:3-4

arnold

  • the king of cool
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 3183
  • oh that will get you killed
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2008, 03:57:48 AM »

Best damn thing that happened in a long time. Now if can just get that 40 mm Gatling gun mounted on the bus for our trip to DC.
Logged
I leave you idiots alone for 5 minutes and I come back and you're all dancing around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots
you're all a bunch of slack jawed faggots around here, this stuff will make you a sexual tyrannosaurus, just like me!

Ed Stowers

  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2008, 10:06:11 AM »

Hmm.  Fifty-five percent of suicides are accomplished by guns.  But 20.2% are by hanging and 17% by poisoning (I assume here pharamceuticals are a big percentage).

That tells me guns work pretty well for what they're designed to do.  It's perceived as quick, perhaps painless (though I think not) and often a line that cannot be backed up over once crossed.

So, if the intent here is to try to limit gun access for people who are potentially suicidal, are there going to be corresponsing laws to prevent access to ropes, insecticides, automobile driving and walking on bridges?

Where do we draw the line here?  If someone really wants to die, a silly law is not going to stop them.  I mean, how many people get arrested, fined and jailed after they break the law by committing suicide?  If they don't have a gun they'll just get something elseto do the job with.  Guns only matter because they are an issue tied to emotions, not logic.  I think they are reaching here.  Should I give a suicidasl person a gun?  No.  Of course not.  Does a dealer know they're suicidal when they buy a gun?

No.  How could they?  That condition can crop up in an instant.  Yeah, this is jsut another anti-gun angle to try to find a way to impose a limit so some group feels better.

But hey, Arnold, that Gatling gun idea is always a good idea in D.C.   ;D

Reminds me of an old joke about Chicago that went somnething like, in 1931 approximately 8% of all Italian males between 19 and 35 in the Mob committed suicide by jumping off a bridge...and 99% of them were pushed.

The fewer rats ther are in the sewer,the fewer there will be killing each other over the same resources.
Logged

Benjamin Liu

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2008, 10:19:19 AM »

So, if the intent here is to try to limit gun access for people who are potentially suicidal,

That's the whole point, stopping suicides is NOT their intent, that is just another "selling point" to the moronic voters.
Logged

fire

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Historic supreme court decision on gun control
« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2008, 10:48:06 PM »

   I have lost two dear friends to suicide- both shot themselves with handguns, each was a  one shot and done thing- One of those two would have killed himself if there was nothing at hand but a sharp rock- he was VERY determined to die, and did so- the other was an impulsive thing, and alcohol influenced, and perhaps had he not had a gun on hand, in his desk, he would not have offed himself- that time, but he had a very self destructive bent, and I am convinced he WOULD have killed himself sooner or later, probably drunk driving-  either way, as sad as it is and as much as I miss them, I cannot blame an inanimate object for choices they made....
Logged
 

Download