9 year old girl accidentally kills shooting instructor

Then there's this.

There's almost as many murders by people that are just pissed off than there are murders during the commission of a crime (such as a robbery, rape, drug related crime, etc).
Here's stats for 2011:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

There's 1,816 homicides using a firearm during the commission of a crime. You should probably add gangland killings (143), juvenile killings (476), and sniper attacks (1). That comes up to 2436.

There's 2139 'argument' related homicides that year - totaling up romantic triangles, brawls, and the varous motivations for arguments.

Then there's 925 'other - not specified' list in 'other than felony type', whereas only 334 not specified for 'felony type' murders with firearms.

In contrast, there were only 201 firearms deaths listed under justfiable homocide in 2011:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15

So in this year anyway you are as likely to get into an argument and kill someone as you were to see a criminal kill someone during a crime, and 10 times more likely to kill someone in an argument than kill somone protecting yourself from a criminal attack.

It's right more often than you are?

On the one hand, you missed the point. I just threw that out as a "for instance" of a typical gun control argument.

On the other hand, how is it misleading? The stats show that "personal weapons", ie hands and feet have consistantly been used to murder more people than rifles.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Now that's intentionally misleading. You can't use murder stats in general to conclude the odds that I will murder someone while I'm committing a crime.

You started with "firearms" and have now narrowed it down to "rifles." Understandably, but...

No I didn't.

http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/2645061/

Are 2nd Amendment rights the only rights which should be monitored and regulated? What others should be monitored?

Define "Second Amendment rights."

Neither your perceived "right" to make obscene phone calls or shout "Fire" in a crowded theater are protected by the First Amendment.

Nor is shooting at someone at random nor target shooting in a crowded theater protected by the second.

Nor are slander, libel, making public threats against elected officials, or prank-calling 911 protected by the First. Find me an amendment that doesn't have exceptions. You guys just can't stop obsessing over the Second.

Are you under the impression that no US Constitutional Amendment has any related legislation, regulation, or court imposed limitations?

Because, since I feel like explaining it to you yet again, the 2nd is the ultimate guarantor of all the rest.

You can say it as many times as you like; it doesn't make it true.

While I don't think the Second is the guarantor of all the others -- that went out the door around the same time the United States started developing a professional military -- I also don't think the acceptance of one restriction as legitimate necessitates the acceptance of another.

I could say the same thing to you. Difference is, I'd be right.

I wasn't questioning your political leaning.

Seriously, how often do you stand on the shore with the rest of the Colonials searching for a British sail?

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.

Because there's a large and powerful faction obsessively attempting to decimate, and even destroy the second via legislation and propaganda.

No. there is not, you incredibly paranoid dumbshit. There is an insignificantly tiny group of "Gun Grabbers" out there., A group which, by the way, has very little or nothing to do with the many of us who merely want common-sense regulation and registration. Period. The only connection between these two groups, is the wholly fictional one invented by the NRA to play on your paranoid fears, and thus bolster its own membership ranks, and thus its political power.

No, but the acceptance of one restriction as legitimate does necessitate an admission that restrictions are not inherently illegitimate and that there must be some reasonable and intellectually consistent way of judging the legitimacy of restrictions.

If libel restrictions are Constitutional then a whole lot of gun restrictions being waved away by guntards in this thread must also be Constitutional even under the most expansive and ridiculous reading of the Second Amendment.

Reality shows that you are, of course, incorrect.

No, it doesn't. But now that I know what a paranoid dipshpit you are, I know that your opinion in virtually every argument can be ignored from here on out.

LOL, sorry, poor wording on my part.

I meant the generic 'you', implying anyone in that situation. I should have been clearer - I certainly don't think you are likely to accidentally injure anyone.

Well, unless they are taking photos of you in the shower with your AR-15 and a cookie.

Whatever Leftist John Castle......

It's incredibly silly when you consider that no one is doubting the purpose of firearms and most are all for firearms safety. I have yet to meet anyone that thinks a nine year old should be practicing with an Uzi so hence the "go fuck yourself" towards Fartman.

OK.

Because the only one that was talking about limiting the conversaton to only rifles was you. All the stats previously were about firearms. A superb example of moving the goalposts.

It was a hypothetical argument meant to demonstrate the "existential nature of firearms" counter point that that Garamet and I were talking about. It was totally made up on my part as an example. Did the fact that I was arguing both sides not clue you in?

Srsly.

http://hematite.com/dragon/bradyquotes.html
http://bearingarms.com/feinstein-shrieks-about-gun-people-after-lax-shooting/

30 years of having shit like NJ's assault rifle ban and the NY SAFE act shoved down our throats without proper legislative process; 30 years of incremental laws that are clearly less than the legislators want; 30 years of listening to the Feinsteins and Cuomos and Bloombergs and Bradys, and you wonder why we're paranoid?

no, we accept your paranoia as the reason for owning guns. It's a given. Why won't you accept our paranoia about mentally unbalanced, criminal, or just plain idiots having unfettered access to guns?