You win teh interwebs today!

I have awarded myself with a Golden Star of Merit for this momentous achievement!

Indeed it was. First time I've ever had to try this idea of extending a thread into a different location. Did you have a favorite section of the debate?

Julie - Your sarcasm doesn't help if you don't want to be insulted. But hopefully my comments will surprise you. I am a ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a firearms owner and regarding your comments of:

"Obviously another responsible firearms owner in America and accidents resulting from the actions of responsible firearms owners rarely happen...right?"

Yeah, the person in your linked story is an idiot and a clearly irresponsible firearms owner if they don't know the rules and more importantly don't know what ammunition they were firing. If they did know the rules and did know what they were firing, it's blatant recklessness. In either case, they should be held responsible for their actions.

I think there is common ground for the pro/anti-gun sides...it's called common sense. If anyone wants to argue common sense, therein lies an entirely different discussion.

You know Stephen, I thought most all of it was very interesting untill everyone had to start defending their views over and over again because of some people who like to argue too much. I will admitt that I fall into that catagorie as well though. Over all I think it allowed alot of us to get out the frustration that has been building on this subject which is a good thing.

"Obviously another responsible firearms owner in America and accidents resulting from the actions of responsible firearms owners rarely happen...right?" Correct. These stories do rarely happen. In that case, someone did something stupid. And it burned a building. No one was harmed, except a fireman who inhaled smoke. Weird, huh.

Pot meet kettle...

To be fair, I asked her a similar question. I asked how many people she was ok with allowing to die before the killer reloaded and could be taken down. I asked her that because that's what she advocated as a proper response in the Loughner case. She refuses to answer.

Ah, but Julie...I didn't have a problem answering the question.

Please proceed, Langel :-)

I did, pointing out you don't have the courage to answer questions.

Please proceed. Explain why statistically more people will die by gunshot wounds when they have a firearm in their home. Statistically how more children will die from having a firearm in the home. Statistically how many more women will die from having a firearm in the home. I provided a medical link for you. The NRA was successful in its lobby to prevent the CDC from presenting its findings on firearms deaths.

Far more people die from accidental or stupid shootings in this country than people are protected by others who may have been carrying in the right place at the right time

Laughable, Julie. You really don't want to talk about the facts, do you. You only want to demonize guns. You are afraid of answering questions. You are afraid of having your beliefs challenged because you are arrogantly convinced they are unquestionably true. Get over yourself, Julie, and start to add to the conversation. At this point, your participation is pointless. You only want to argue, and have no interest in a discussion.

Prove this claim: "Far more people die from accidental or stupid shootings in this country than people are protected by others who may have been carrying in the right place at the right time"

I provided a link. Read it.

Or how about this: explain why swimming pools are a much greater danger to kids than guns.

Or maybe this: explain why you demand that others answer your questions and read your links, but you ignore such requests of you. Would that be called....hypocrisy?

The link provided here was for a story about a fire, not statistics.

Here... just because it will take you too long to look it up.

"...the findings from stratified analyses were consistent with the notion that a gun in the home increased the risk of death."

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2

I already responded to that one as well. Go back to the other thread and look it up.

Now explain why you don't think you need to do the same you demand of others.

Langel, prove where I'm demonizing guns. Never said so. Don't want your guns. I just don't want stupid people to have guns. Granted, it's your Constitutional right to be stupid with guns, but it's also my Constitutional right not to be killed by a stupid person with a gun.

You're talking in circles.

Explain why statistically more people will die by gunshot wounds when they have a firearm in their home. Statistically how more children will die from having a firearm in the home. Statistically how many more women will die from having a firearm in the home.

Show where you are demonizing guns? See pretty well all your comments on this topic. Everything you talk about is how guns kill, how unsafe they are, blah blah.

I'm not talking in circles, I'm just pointing out the problems with your argument. I'm also pointing out how you are a blatant hypocrite in what you expect of others versus what you think you need to do.

Okay. "blah, blah" I'm a "blatant hypocrite" because I don't want to be killed by a stupid person with a gun.

If you want to keep firearms, that's your right. Just don't think you'll know what you'll do in any given situation where you think you have to use it. You won't.

No, you're a blatant hypocrite because you demand things of others that you refuse to do yourself. You are more likely to get killed by a stupid person driving a car than by a stupid person with a gun. You're more likely to get killed by someone beating you to death with their fists than with a gun. You're more likely to die in a pool than you are by a gun. Your concerns are misplaced, but you already knew that.

Umm... I'm not dead yet. I've been in car accidents and have had several surgeries because of them. I already told you I lived in a high crime area where I was cursed, spit at, saw fights on BART, demonstrations in the streets and didn't feel the need for a firearm. I told you my husband carried because it was a high-crime area. What do you want?

Sorry... I don't have statistics where people have been beaten to death by fists. Or deaths by swimming pool. I'm not a swimmer.

So you haven't been killed by a car, a gun, a pencil, or a swimming pool. What are you afraid of with any of them?

And it is noted that you are avoiding acknowledging your hypocrisy.

LOLZ!

Ah, sticking to those Progressive debate tactics of never actually dealing with any of the facts presented.

At least we know you understand you are a hypocrite and lack credibility. So exactly what point are you trying to make again?

Yes. Guns kill people in the same way you stab someone in the eye into their brain with a pencil.

LOLZ!!

Interesting interview

"President Obama has directed the Centers for Disease Control to research gun violence as part of his legislative package on gun control. The CDC hasn’t pursued this kind of research since 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut funding for it, arguing that the studies were politicized and being used to promote gun control."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/26/what-researchers-learned-about-gun-violence-before-congress-killed-funding/

Yes, Julie, and look what's being done again with that information.

Interesting...

"If you look at how many deaths have occurred between 1996, when there was this disruption to surveillance and research, and now, so that’s 16 years, and if you assume that there are about 30,000 gun deaths every year, you’re talking about 480,000 gun deaths over that period of time.

If even a fraction of those deaths could have been prevented, you’re talking about a significant impact in terms of saving lives."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/26/what-researchers-learned-about-gun-violence-before-congress-killed-funding/

Yup. Now ask yourself this: were those deaths from law abiding gun owners or criminals? Hmmm?

But those studies wouldn't be used for political purposes on gun control, now would they.

So we've also seen where guns have saved the lives of many people. If even a fraction of those deaths would have happened, you’re talking about a significant impact in terms of number of gun deaths. If it saves just one life, right?

Is there a difference between a law-abiding gun owner and a criminal when someone is just as dead?

"You refuse to actually think about and discuss what you are saying. Why?"

I am thinking about it and discussing the subject -- just not the way you want to. So sue me...

"Is there a difference between a law-abiding gun owner and a criminal when someone is just as dead?"

Yes, there clearly is. I posted the story a couple days about about a dad killing an armed intruder in his house, which saved his and his 2 year old son's lives. That was an action which saved lives of innocents, and a criminal is now dead. Now let's take a story about a homeowners who was murdered by an armed intruder. Clearly they are different actions.

And sorry, but you clearly are not thinking about these things. Either that or you are thinking you are wrong and can't justify what you say, which is why you are a hypocrite and refuse to do what you demand of others.

I posted stories about children who have been killed by firearms that were unsecured.

Clearly, I have not been thinking this through!

"...you clearly are not thinking about these things. Either that or you are thinking you are wrong and can't justify what you say, which is why you are a hypocrite and refuse to do what you demand of others."

Oh, dear...

Yes, you posted that accidents happen. And that's what they are, tragic, unfortunate accidents. Accidents happen with cars and baseball bats and more.

And yes, you remain a hypocrite. That is also clear.

Okie dokie, then! How am I not supposed to laugh about that?

I have to wonder, Langel, if you live in a high crime area in Eastern Iowa and what are the crime statistics where you live/work/commute? If you live in a high crime area you're perfectly justified in having/carrying firearms -- same as we were when we lived in a high crime area in California. Certainly, no one prohibited us from owning firearms, going to the range or being buckskinners and shooting our muzzleloaders.

Honestly, I don't know what you're so afraid of.

So crimes only happen in high crime areas, Julie? Only the people in high crime areas have any valid reason to try to protect themselves and their family? Of course not, your argument is illogical.

Who made you the arbiter of who is justified to have a weapon or not? Do you know better than me what I need for my family? Of course not. Yours is the same Progressive mentality which is permeating Washington right now, that the government knows better than we do what is best for us. Sorry, that is a falsehood, and it is a marxist principle.

Yeah, it was OK when Julie's husband got to carry, just not the rest of us "crazies" we're paranoid.

Where did I say you could not have firearms, Matthew?

Julie, I just hope you gave your husband as much crap as you're giving all of the rest of us here.

Well there is some good facts for you Julie.

Stephen, it's all about gun control. Public lists are ways to condition people to think there is something wrong with the gun owner. In other words, it's about conditioning the public to be against guns. They're starting with kids, in that kids are getting suspended from school for making a gun with their fingers and pointing it at people. They are using this propaganda to condition people to be irrationally fearful of guns.

As for your suicide question, we have a problem with mental health in this country, not guns. Address that and you reduce suicides.

"...how much have you guys discussed the fact that gun permits being available to the public is more of an open records question than a gun control question?"

Not so much. It was -- sort of -- in the beginning and then meandered off. :-/

Julie (or anyone else in this thread) failed to answer my question about what good would come from knowing who has their Permit to Carry. I have argued that such a list is dangerous politically and also puts permit holders at risk of burglary. I still don't understand why the general public would need to know this information, or what they would intend to do with such information.

Matthew, the carry permits have been published in newspapers for several years. Have you been burglarized?

See, this is exactly what I was talking about.

By the same argument Julie, assault rifles have been around for years, have you been shot Julie?

No, I haven't, Matthew. Have you been burglarized because you have firearms, stabbed in the eye with a pencil, drowned in a swimming pool, killed by fists and feet, died in a car accident or been bludgeoned to death by a baseball bat?

Apparently, we're all supposed to be very, very afraid of those occurances.

Stephen, it looks like there just may be a third thread, I have to give you props for opening up this debate. Good subject.

This isn't a discussion or conversation anymore as nobody appears to want to keep it that way by answering questions posed by opponents to their arguments so like I said on the first thread, I'm finished here.

@Rick Langel: I'm going to have to disagree with you on a few points. First just being on a list doesn't necessarily discourage people from doing something. For example, property ownership information is all generally public record. Some people might not want you to know how expensive their house is, but that hasn't led to it being a secret.

As for punishing kids for making gun shapes with their hands, I'm guessing that's just reactionary on the part of the school district's. I would agree with you that it's reactionary in a silly way, but I can't go along with you that it's part of some sort of educational inculcation plot against firearms.

I find @Matthew Georges' point about why firearms need to be known versus other purchases an interesting one. One thing I would like to know is what the legal rationale is behind that, and how that ties into public records laws in general.

Also, finally, I agree that there are mental health treatment problems in this country. But when you are trying to reduce a problem of this magnitude it helps to come at it from several different angles. We will likely never eliminate the mass shooter from American life, but we can reduce the fatalities, the likelihood and severity of the incidences, and the way we respond to them once they've happened. Some form of gun control, in addition to mental health treatment improvements, could (and I stress the word Could) play a part in that.

Exactly Stephen,
I have no idea what use this information has to the general public. I don't know what a law abiding person would do with this information, while the list of things criminals could do with such a list is plentiful. In publishing such a list I think it serves to make none of us safer and puts some of us our our property at risk.

"Apparently, we're all supposed to be very, very afraid of those occurances."

If your argument is that you want to save lives, which is what you've claimed, then you should express concern for the things which currently have a higher rate of death than weapons. You only want to address those eeeevil guns, which you clearly fear. That's why this is a political argument and not a fact based one or one based upon safety.

"First just being on a list doesn't necessarily discourage people from doing something." --Correct, I should have said: "Public lists *of gun owners* are ways to condition people to think there is something wrong with the gun owner. In other words, it's about conditioning the public to be against guns."

I just incorrectly assumed that people would understand I was talking about lists of gun owners.

"I would agree with you that it's reactionary in a silly way, but I can't go along with you that it's part of some sort of educational inculcation plot against firearms." --Oh but it is. Not "educational" overall, but more like a Progressive inculcation plot against firearms. Kids are very easily influenced at young ages, and many schools are using...ummm...creative ways to add propaganda to the school work. Do you have kids in school? Particularly young kids? If so, you should dig into the things being taught and see if you can spot the agenda.

"We will likely never eliminate the mass shooter from American life,...."

Actually, if you listen to the Progressive elites in Washington, they've said exactly that. They have stated their goal is to not have any more. Not reduce, but prevent.

"...but we can reduce the fatalities, the likelihood and severity of the incidences, and the way we respond to them once they've happened. Some form of gun control, in addition to mental health treatment improvements, could (and I stress the word Could) play a part in that." --So as we look around at places where gun control has been implemented, what is the effect? Has violence been reduced? Sure. We've seen in places like Australia that violence went down slightly after they enacted gun control. However, during the same time frame, the rate of violence in the US dropped something like 3 times as fast. Why? Because the guns are not the problem.

The problem is whether we choose to enforce our existing laws. The problem is whether we have a strong economy where people don't need to resort to crime to survive. The problem is whether we have strong family units that teach values and morals. I can go on, but it's not gun control which solves problems with violence. It's us.

Using your arguement, maxine, it's too dangerous to publish obituaries or funeral notices. Are you going to guard dead people's homes?

Actually, I don't know of anyone who doesn't have someone staying at the deceased person's house when no one else is there, specifically for the purpose of protecting it from those who read the obits and think they might have an easy robbery.

How so? A carry permit published in the newspaper is no different than a funeral notice published in the newspaper. Both would invite burglaries. What's the difference?

When was the last time that a carry permit was actually published in an Iowa newspaper? In all my years, I've never seen one.

They're regularly published in the Cedar Rapids Gazette.

Thanks, maxine! LOL! I knew I would be insulted here... LOL!

So... people don't scan obituaries and funeral notices looking for crimes of opportunity when the families are at the funeral or even when the dead persons' home is empty? How do you know there aren't firearms in the home? Isn't it more dangerous for a criminal to try to steal firearms from a person who HAS a carry permit? Isn't that why one HAS a carry permit?

I thought your point of not publishing carry permits was so people wouldn't get burglarized because criminals would know there are firearms in the home. If no one is home what's the difference?

Actually, the main argument is privacy. It's none of your business.

If that's what the public wants, then let's eliminate all public records. It's only fair.

Julie the difference is the people won't ALWAYS be gone, they do live there obviously they have to be home sometimes.

Yes, we should eliminate many of them, they are unnecessary and mostly none of our business. To paraphrase Jefferson, if it neither breaks my bones not picks my pocket it is none of my business.

Stephen--I just read more about this incident:

"An editor of a small newspaper in North Carolina resigned this week following an onslaught of death threats over his information request for the names of concealed carry permit holders and applicants in his area."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/27/editor-resigns-after-death-threats-from-furious-gun-owners/

Imagine that...death threats. They really ARE sensitive!

Who make the threats, Julie? Do you know? Could it be some moronic Progressive trying to demonize gun owners? It could be gun owners, we don't know. Yet you jump to conclusions.

Obituaries are submitted by the family of the deceased. This is a voluntary act. That would be the difference.

Would you repeal the Freedom of Information Act, maxine? What about the 1st Amendment?

Ah, the typical Progressive debate tactic to try to turn the argument and switch it to be a debate about something it is not. Protecting someone's privacy is a different argument than protecting free speech.

Way to stay on your pattern, Langel. Scared would be not answering questions which attack the heart of your argument because you know you are wrong. Scared would be resorting to diversions instead of honest debate. Scared would be lashing out at others in order to get people riled up, which prevents any serious debate from happening, which is what you want.

Your regressivism is shining bright, and it shines bright because you know your positions don't work and will never work. But a regressive's job in discussions like this isn't to try to defend those positions, it is to try to create as much discord and division and diversion as they can so that the facts and the real problems aren't ever discussed. Your problem is that people can easily see right through it. And Langel, you are completely transparent. Transparent, hypocritical, and dishonest, and you know it.

And if you stay in your regressive pattern, your response to this will either be another diversion, some kind of unrelated attack on me, or you ignore it completely and make an attack on someone else. You arrogantly can't even consider the possibility that your beliefs are wrong, which is part of why you lash out at people like you do. It is a foregone conclusion in your mind that you are right, so you can't violate that by debating the facts relating to the argument because that would mean you have to question your core beliefs. And you just won't do that, will you.

Freedom of the press is part of the 1st amendment -- which is exactly what this debate is about.

Ah, Julie, you keep implying you are not a Progressive, and that you aren't doing what I've pointed you're doing, and then you post something like this. You are a classic Progressive in your views and debating tactics, doing everything I've stated to avoid actually having a debate. You are the typical dishonest Progressive who only wants government control over us.

"Freedom of the press is part of the 1st amendment -- which is exactly what this debate is about."

Really? So the press should be able to say anything and everything they want to? Should they be able to investigate your financials? Get private bank data? Get your emails? Is there anything the press should not be able to do?

You clearly do not understand the 1st Amendment, nor do you understand what the 4th Amendment provides.

Just can't help lashing out can you, Langel. It's tiresome and boring.

Sorry, Julie, lashing out is your forte, not mine.

But by accusing me of that, you are attempting to change the focus from your lack of understanding of the 1st and 4th Amendments to me. Sorry, not going to work.

Freedom of the Press is designed to ensure that the federal government doesn't limit or control the press. This is not such an instance. Local governments are not federal governments. The press also doesn't have full access to print anything they want to. We have rights for unreasonable search and seizure which even local governments cannot violate. (although the Progressive elites are violating this with warrantless wiretaps, getting copies of our emails without warrants, and the drone programs which are allowing both federal and local government drones to fly all over the US) We have the right to not have our private information made public.

And yet we have the Freedom of Information Act that, when granted, allows investigative journalists to investigate and report their findings. Remember Watergate?

No, the press can't say any old thing that it wants to (unless you're part of Fox News, of course). That's why there are libel laws and that's one reason why Rupert Mudoch and his son, James are in such hot water in the UK.

"In Lovell v. City of Griffin,[148] Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."[149] Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to restrictions on bases such as defamation law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Ah, the best way to see the hatred boiling within a Progressive is to just get them to talk, which likely is why Julie doesn't answer questions. First we find that she thinks that conservatives are "regressive" and now she is lashing out at Fox News because apparently they report things she doesn't like. Keep talking, Julie, your Progressiveness is in full bloom.

Anyway....Julie, the Freedom of Information Act allows for anyone (not only the media) access to information about GOVERNMENT activities, not activities of private citizens. Sorry.

And that's not why James Murdock is in trouble in the UK. He's in trouble because they violated the privacy of individuals by things like getting access to their private voice mails. So if you're getting your information about the Constitution from wikipedia, you need to find a new source. There are no edit checks there, anyone can change pretty well anything to say anything they want.

Would you prefer this source from the Cornell University Law School?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

I'm sure you kinow about this case, Langel. "The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves."

http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

Cornell is better than wikipedia any day, and they agree with what I said.

As for your other link, it's a Progressive media outlet putting it's own spin on what actually happened, and is not the actual facts of the case. Sorry, Julie.

Fox News Julie, really? Oh yeah thats why they have rated #1 for ten years in a row because they are such liars...if you watched Fox once in a while you might understand politics alittle more.

It's exactly what Langel posted to me in the other thread. I just changed the name and the term "Progressive" to "regressive."

Glad to know you think Langel was projecting, too!

Um...Julie? That's not what she was saying. But you knew that, didn't you.

Why do we care who has a hunting license or fishing license?

There is no slipper slope. If it doesn't break your leg or pick your pocket, it is not your business.

Sorry, that should have been "slippery" slope....

Government business is everybody's business, and open to ensure it isn't picking your pocket or breaking your leg.

Absolutely agree, Nathan.

"Government business is everybody's business, and open to ensure it isn't picking your pocket or breaking your leg." Right. We're not talking about government business, but yours and mine.

How long you been in the business of granting local/state/federal licenses, Rick?

I don't. The permit is mine, not the government's.

To put it a different way, we also have to register our cars. Does that registration make the car yours or the government's?

You have to have a state drivers license to legally drive that car, and carry insurance on that car; neither of which is required for owning a firearm.

"You have to have a state drivers license to legally drive that car, and carry insurance on that car; neither of which is required for owning a firearm."

Correct, because they are different things. It is a privilege, not a right, to have a driver's license. It's not something essential to have, as people can take a bus or walk or ride a bike to get where they need to go. Having a weapon is protected by the 2nd Amendment, and is an unalienable right. Which you claim to support.

So are you advocating that government have the power to tell us who can do what? Or do you believe that we as Americans have unalienable rights to own property, have free speech, etc.?

Then why did you change the subject to car registrations?

Um..Julie? A car registration is a "permit" you get from a local government to be able to own a car. The car and the registration for a car is ours, not the government's. That was my point. I did not bring up drivers licenses, you did that.

BTW, I actually don't need to have a license in order to register a car, or have insurance in order to register a car. Sorry, Julie.

You also don't have to own a firearm to have a carry permit. But then... you knew that.

Yes, I do know that. I also don't need a permit to have a gun.

So...what was your point again?

What was your point about car registrations?

That it's my license and not the government's, so the FOIA does not apply.

But thanks for continuing to prove me right about you as you continue to avoid answering questions or admitting you are incorrect about anything while continuing to lash out at anyone who disagrees with you.

Rick,

The argument that it is yours and the govt doesn't apply is absurd.

Who issued the license, you? Who set up the qualifications to obtain it, you? Who printed it, you? Who paid for the printing, you? Who paid for the processing, you? Who paid for the personnel costs involved in your background check, you? If you think the measly 50 bucks covers this, you're wrong.

Let's review, you apply for a permit administered by the govt, granted by the govt, and paid for by the govt, but don't think that foia should apply? On this count you are wrong.

Nathan, I never said the government wasn't involved, but the license issued is mine and not the government's.

"Let's review, you apply for a permit administered by the govt, granted by the govt, and paid for by the govt, but don't think that foia should apply? On this count you are wrong." Actually, the government can't pay for anything, as it only has money it has taken from others.

FOIA is a law that gives access to info from the federal government: http://www.foia.gov/

The FOIA law specifically says that things protected from public disclosure are not allowed to be released. That includes things which are covered by the 4th Amendment.

Rick, thanks for pointing out where I was wrong. I agree, the government functions on money taken from others, in essence, MY TAX money supports the admin to provide you the government license. Another great reason for transparency!

With that barb aside, we both agree that others are paying for the program you are benefiting from. Once again, let me reiterate, I think that there needs to be restrictions on how the info is handled, but there should be some level of public transparency involved.

For anyone to say that the product they get from the public dole is off limits to any sunshine is wrong. Especially when the reasoning is that the govt provided license is "mine". I've agued both sides of this topic, and I believe both sides are wrong. To provide no access to info is wrong. To provide unjustified access to info is wrong. In my humble opinion.

Nathan, my tax dollars help pay for the IRS, can I use FOIA and get a copy of your tax returns?

Be my guest. I'd be happy to Romney for you!

Wait, so you're saying there is private information about your life that the government has but won't release about you? Huh.

I think this idea has legs, if you had to ask for the information, there would at least be some record of who asked. If there were a robbery or some other consequence, the police could look up who requested information and start their investigation there.

What about the lady in New York who got a gun to protect herself from a stalker, had taken steps to move and hide from him. And then the gun owners list was published so the stalker was able to find her again. It's private information, and no one else's business.

Nathan, I thought that's what I was doing. "It's none of your business" is a 4th Amendment argument. I've argued that public lists are a political tool in getting people turned against guns. I also agree on your 2nd paragraph.

Correction: Newton -> Newtown

Does it harm you in any way if I as a law abiding citizen have a weapon? If the answer is no then there is no reason to make the info public.

I think this explanation sums things up nicely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R8WLXhahw_A

The problem we have in this country is not guns, it's our values.

Rick, I just said in my comment that one solution would be to not make the information public.

Right, but that's not a compromise or a solution, it is what we should be doing in the first place. So registration does not need to be more comprehensive because government has no business regulating private sales between two private individuals, and no public lists like that should exist. That is the only path which follows the Constitution.

Yes, that's exactly the point of the argument being made that more than 99% of legal gun owners don't commit crimes with those guns. If the crimes are committed by people with mental illness or people who don't want to follow the law, then we deal with mental illness issues or ramp up efforts against things like gangs.

It can actually be both. If the criminals know the homeowner isn't home, as in if they are on vacation or at work, then they go to steal the weapon. But if the homeowner is home and there is a likelihood the homeowner is armed, that would put a damper on someone's interest in breaking in.

Yes, exactly, Travis! We all need to be implanted with RFID tags. That way, when we leave our homes, the data can be transmitted to the State, and records blocked or released as appropriate. Same with traveling, entering and exiting facilities, etc. So, what we really need is far more government oversight of our lives. Thank you, Rick, for convincing me to support your idea of Big Brother.

Or we just don't publish the list and let the criminals not know for sure either way.

I have an "idea of Big Brother"? The only idea I have of that is that it is bad and we don't want it.

I guess I agree with Mr.Langel. Publishing the list would put a damper on someone's interest in breaking in when the shooter is home. If the shooter is away I assume they will carry the firearm and the criminals could not steal the weapon. It seems like publishing would be somewhat of a benefit to the shooter. The clever criminal, before using the list as a roadmap for breaking in, should consider that shotgun owners might not be on the list. I agree the problem is not so much the gun, but the nut or child having a gun. Now, if we let Big Bro. decide who the nuts are I'm afraid some of the folks on this page, myself included, would be on the first train to the " facility". We must all decide for ourselves who we would trust with a loaded weapon. If we had the list, even an imperfect list, we could decide for ourselves which nuts might have guns. Which drunks might be armed. Which scattered brained mom might forget where she put the gun. Then we don't let the kids go over there to play. We won't party with the drunk shooter. Let us decide, and for that we need the information.By the way, I like Mr.Stutler's idea about the chip. Maybe not implanted in my head, but if the handguns had them we could tell how many and which drunks at a bar were armed. I think I'd like that.

"Let us decide, and for that we need the information." Are you afraid of guns? If one of your friends had a gun, are you saying you wouldn't go to their house? Does the presence of a gun really bother you that much?

I've never been "afraid" of guns. As a unit armorer I was responsible for hundreds of weapons of various caliber. Never had one do anything stupid or careless or harmful. Certainly not when handled, operated, and maintained properly.
I have, however, observed trained soldiers commit really stupid and unsafe acts that could easily have gotten someone killed. There are two that stand out most in my memory. One when a soldier was turning in a weapon to my arms room after a live fire range event, and accidentally discharged his rifle into the ceiling of the supply room (he had just tried to pass in into the cage muzzle-first, bolt forward, and got his butt chewed). The other was at a range, when a weapon continued to fire when a sear broke. The soldier, a junior officer, started to turn around to the rear to ask for assistance as the weapon continued to fire. Both situations could have gotten someone killed....me, for one. Mind you, these were trained, experienced soldiers, who knew they were handling live ammo. Yet both these individuals each made a really careless/stupid mistake.
I'm not worried about the guns. I've known thousands. Never had a gun do anything stupid/careless......

I hadn't considered that particular use, Travis. Interesting.... I like it! ;-)

You're far more likely to get hit by a car than you are be shot.

http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Picture%20Library/News/web_graphics/Injury_Facts_37.pdf

Your fear is misplaced.

I thought you were scared of swimming pools, Langel.

Oh Julie, such dishonesty. Not scared of swimming pools, just pointing out there are many things which are far more likely to cause you harm, and which you're not wanting to do anything about. Your fears are misplaced.

Travis the idea of a chip on the weapons sounds like a great solution, but only the registered guns would get them so that would not work for the criminals who don't register their guns.

"If you shoot them while they're a threat to you or other persons, you are generally fine. If you shoot them while they're leaving or after they've left the house, you're likely screwed. Threats to property generally don't justify use of deadly force. "

h/t Joe

Actually, you can shoot them as they are running away as well. Protecting your property absolutely justifies deadly force. We can see example after example of this across this country all the time. The Castle Laws are prime examples of this.

Sorry, your claims just aren't valid.

Rick, we don't have such a castle law in Iowa. Also, as a gun owner, I don't feel that someone stealing my xbox and running off justifies me blowing a hole in their back.

We don't have one, you are correct. The castle laws are typically only in place in larger states that needed to clarify what it means to protect your property.

And it's your choice as to whether to use your weapon to protect your property or not. You absolutely have that choice.

Sure Rick, we all have that choice. Hell we all have the choice to shoot someone for not saying "God bless you" after we sneeze. It doesn't make it justifiable. You have to be accountable for the choices you make.

Absolutely, Matthew, we as gun owners have to be accountable, I completely agree. That's why responsible gun owners won't shoot someone for not saying "God Bless You".

Just to clarify, would you think a responsible gun owner would shoot someone if they caught them running away with their TV? Would you?

A responsible gun owner would have the decision to make, and each would have to make their own decision. As for what I would do, it depends on whether I thought I could get to the thief without using deadly force or not, or if using deadly force would endanger anyone else.

http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=83&input=704#704.2

h/t Joe

Another one, Langel.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/ProtectionofProperty.asp

h/t Joe.

That says pretty much the same thing as I said, so are you disagreeing with me? Just trying to figure out what your argument is.

Rick, it doesn't agree with your position. At all, the best it says is that you're allowed to use reasonable force in some jurisdictions. Bottom line if you shoot someone for stealing your tv you will be charged with murder. Also, any responsible gun owner would know that is not worth taking someone's life over.

OK Rick, I'm starting to see why you're so infamous on here, you refuse to admit when you're wrong.

How am I wrong? Please explain.

......and can include deadly force if it is
reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or
risk to one's life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it
is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist a
like force or threat. Reasonable force, including deadly force, may
be used even if an alternative course of action is available if the
alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or the life or safety
of a third party, or requires one to abandon or retreat from one's
dwelling or place of business or employment.

you really need to read more, not just cherry pick the part of the sentence you think proves your point..

Matthew, I pointed that out as well, when you asked what I would do personally. If there was a safer way to stop the person, or if what I would do would injure others.

1st link, no shots fired, he stops a crime from happening by displaying a weapon.

2nd link,
“I told him I was armed… He kept coming, so I started backing up,”
Obviously she was in fear for her safety

3rd link, which is also the 4th link (maybe so it could look like more links?) the intruder is still inside the home, not leaving with their backs turned.

Did you actually read these or just give the first three links off of google re protection of property? You're done.

Right, each gun owner made a decision about use of deadly force. These links were just at the top of my list of property owners using deadly force. There are more, if you'd like me to post them as well.

Careful Matthew...Langel's gonna start stalking you now.

Sorry, I can provide more links if you'd like if you don't believe that situation is covered under the laws for protection of your own property.

Show me one, one, where someone gets shot in the back, as they are retreating, with an item of stolen property where the shooter is justified. please.

Here's one that took all of 20 seconds to find:

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2009/12/charles_w_kemp_18_shot_and_killed_while_trying_to_steal_truck_sunday_december_27_2009_st_louis.php

No charges for the shooter related to this event, but he was taken into custody for other warrants.

No charges had been filed at the time of the writing of the article. Is that still the case? I don't know.
Regardless, that was Missouri, and the other case mentioned was Texas. We're in Iowa, where you cannot justifiably use deadly force to protect property. You can certainly defend yourself & your family, but not your TV. Once the person is breaking off engagement (fleeing - even with your TV), you become the bad guy when you break out the Glock and bust a cap in the perp's tuckus.
Persons who can't decide whether they personally would shoot a fleeing perp who stole their TV are certainly not "responsible" gun owners, and are part of the reason many folks think there should be stronger restrictions on who can own, who can carry, and even what types should be allowed.

"No charges had been filed at the time of the writing of the article. Is that still the case? I don't know." As far as i can tell, yes.

"Regardless, that was Missouri, and the other case mentioned was Texas. We're in Iowa, where you cannot justifiably use deadly force to protect property." Actually, according to the law linked to yesterday, you can.

"Once the person is breaking off engagement (fleeing - even with your TV), you become the bad guy when you break out the Glock and bust a cap in the perp's tuckus." Please show in the law where this is noted.

"Persons who can't decide whether they personally would shoot a fleeing perp who stole their TV are certainly not "responsible" gun owners,..." Wait, people who make a decision as to the safety of taking a shot, or whether or not there is a more safe way to go after the thief, these aren't responsible people? Really?

"...and are part of the reason many folks think there should be stronger restrictions on who can own, who can carry, and even what types should be allowed." So we should have more gun laws to prevent people who don't break the law from having a weapon to protect themselves? This is illogical.

You have the right to protect your property sure, with reasonable force, that's what Rick doesn't seem to be able to grasp.

Why are you asking about seeing people with guns in the store? I already told you I have my CCW and carry myself, I'm just not as trigger happy as Langel apparently.

Joe, your right. Anyone who would shoot another person for stealing their tv or anything else is not someone who needs to have a weapon available to them. I would however use my weapon to get the message across for that person to get the hell out of my house. The only way I would actually shoot is if he threatened me or my family with bodily harm, then its on.

"Anyone who would shoot another person for stealing their tv or anything else is not someone who needs to have a weapon available to them." So you don't believe you have a right to protect your property? Maxine, just yesterday you said that if someone breaks into your house they aren't walking about, has that changed?

Exactly, Maxine! Racking a 12 ga pump-action shotgun would go a long way towards chasing off the bad guys, and if you're loaded with bird shot you have less chance of killing a loved one through a wall.
Besides, you don't want to use deadly force when the law in Iowa doesn't allow it. No sense in going to prison for a very long time to save a TV. A good explanation can be found here: http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/ProtectionofProperty.asp
Second paragraph sums it up nicely: "It is important to remember that deadly force can never be used simply to defend property against someone else’s interference with that property, even if that interference is unlawful and even if there is no other way to prevent that interference. See State v. Metcalfe, 212 N.W. 382 (Iowa 1927)."
That there are some who wish it were otherwise, or believe it to be otherwise is irrelevant. Those folks have no business owning or handling a firearm if they don't understand basic deadly force rules. That's but one of the reasons I believe our training and competency requirements should be strengthened. Perhaps it's time to drop the military exemption from training requirements as well. Just because someone has served doesn't mean they actually know what they're doing or what the law says.

"Racking a 12 ga pump-action shotgun would go a long way towards chasing off the bad guys, and if you're loaded with bird shot you have less chance of killing a loved one through a wall." Most experts I've read have said a shotgun is probably the worst thing you can have in that instance. It's less accurate, for example, usually heavier, which makes it harder to use in that scenario.

"Besides, you don't want to use deadly force when the law in Iowa doesn't allow it" It doesn't? Joe, the link you provided specifically noted it was allowed and the circumstances under which it's allowed.

"That there are some who wish it were otherwise, or believe it to be otherwise is irrelevant." Joe, even that source describes the scenarios where it is legal to use deadly force to protect your property.

For example:
"Some jurisdictions also allow the right to use deadly force in defense of one’s actual dwelling even if there is no risk of death or injury to any person involved."

"However, modern statutes have limited the right to use deadly force in defense of a dwelling so that, today, the use of deadly force is only allowed if the defendant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony or to hurt somebody in the dwelling."

BTW, that link isn't about Iowa's specific laws on use of deadly force, it only refers to one case. Here is the actual law:

http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/cool-ice/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=iowacode&input=704#704.2

Be sure to look at section 704.4.

The gun laws being proposed don't affect the criminals in the least, they only affect law abiding gun owners, and 99.7% of those gun owners don't commit gun crimes.

"Reasonable force" you're not being reasonable Rick. If it meant "Deadly force" it would have stated so in that paragraph, it intentionally does not.

You are correct, Matthew, but what is reasonable depends on the situation, which is why there is no one definition for that term.

Matthew, sometimes Code can be confusing to read and understand. For example, some folks don't get that "reasonable force" and "deadly force" are two different things, and Iowa Code defines what both mean. In section 704.6, it describes when such a defense is not available:
The defense of justification is not available to the following:
...
3. One who initially provokes the use of force against oneself by
one's unlawful acts, unless:
a. Such force is grossly disproportionate to the provocation,
and is so great that the person reasonably believes that the person
is in imminent danger of death or serious injury or
b. The person withdraws from physical contact with the other
and indicates clearly to the other that the person desires to
terminate the conflict but the other continues or resumes the use of
force.

Then, another common mistake of those with only a superficial understanding of rule of law is to forget about case law. In Iowa, deadly force is most certainly *NOT* justifiable to only protect property. See State v. Metcalfe, 212 N.W. 382 (Iowa 1927) for a full treatment of this issue.

Hope this helps clarify.

I'm not opposed to people having weapons, Maxine. I'm gonna have to go dust off my 50 cal. flintlock and caplock now... maybe fill up the powder horn and cast some balls...

I still think having dogs is the best deterrent to home robberies, though. You shoulda seen my two dogs go crazy when the electrician came to check out my faulty garage door today!

Langel's the only one who thinks I'm opposed to having weapons.

No Rick I haven't changed my mind about protecting my property. BUT I don't beleive taking someones life for taking my TV is a fair exchange. My homeowners insurance will replace my TV and the perp could go to jail, thats fair. But killing someone because they take my 55 inch off the wall is not really fair is it? However if he threatens to hurt me if I don't let him have the TV, that might become a whole other situation.

Maxine nails it yet again!
That's why Iowa law allows for the use of "reasonable force" to protect oneself as well as third parties, and such force may be up to "deadly force". Iowa law *doesn't* allow deadly force to be used to only protect property. One must "reasonably believe" that oneself or third party is in "imminent danger of death or serious injury". Once the perp is indicating they are disengaging (fleeing, not brandishing a weapon at you or a third party, not trying to harm you or a third party, etc), you no longer have justification to use deadly force. Some folks might not have understood my comment where I indicated that sometimes Iowa law allows deadly force and sometimes it does not allow it. Perhaps I could have made my statement a bit more clearly, perhaps others need to seriously consider their own reading comprehension skills and their desire to understand (or deliberately not understand) what others say.
Iowa code is pretty clear, as is the case law. Even a lay person such as myself can understand the code (and thanks to Julie for posting yesterday the link I sent her to Iowa code)
Folks who don't understand that the Iowa code *does NOT* allow you to defend property with deadly force should not be handling firearms. If they want to be gunslingers, let 'em move to states where life is less valuable than a TV - say, Texas or Missouri.
Funny, too, that shotguns with birdshot are recommended by experts, but it depends on specific circumstances.

As for my own circumstances, having been very well trained in a wide variety of arms (with years of significant experience) and given the layout of my domicile, intruders have no idea what they may face. I've read many opinions from various experts, and as I'm an expert myself and know my own situation better than anyone else, I make my decisions from a very well informed perspective. Your mileage may vary, as they say.
Did you know that you can acquire birdshot rounds for handguns? Birdshot comes in handy for the first round down-range, as it's far less likely to seriously injure loved ones in your home and your neighbors. The next rounds that follow are likely to be more than mere nuisance. But then, I'd prefer not to kill unless absolutely necessary, and certainly not over mere property. That's the *responsible* part of firearm ownership that some folks just don't seem to understand. That folks *can* do something because they have the Right to doesn't necessarily mean they *should* do that something.....*responsible*.

+1 Maxine
+1 Joe
-.5 Joe for the birdshot for handguns, it seems like a good idea, but I wouldn't even consider firing unless it was life and death. Also, those type of rounds are a bit of a novelty, and from personal experience I wouldn't consider using those because of reliability and cycling issues. They're not quality rounds, not even as good as range rounds IMO. If I'm carrying, it's with the best ammunition I can afford and I know cycles well through my weapon.
Other than that, very excellent points sir.

Sorry, Matthew...should have specified revolvers. I agree with your point about quality of ammo, especially when carrying. Don't think I'd generally carry bird shot in a handgun, but in home it's less likely I'd harm family or neighbors. Perhaps where hiking in areas where dangerous animals might pose a threat - I'd rather chase 'em off than kill 'em unless I plan on eating 'em.
Everyone who owns/carries should carefully evaluate their tools as well as themselves as everyone's situation is different.
Excellent point, sir!

"Iowa law *doesn't* allow deadly force to be used to only protect property." Sigh. From the actual law:

"A person is justified in the use of reasonable force to prevent or terminate criminal interference with the person's possession or other right in property."

What does that mean, Joe?

I suggest hollow points over FMJ's for that reason for self defense. They are less likely to penetrate a wall or the perp, so that's what I keep loaded when I carry; not to mention having greater stopping power of course. Also, if you don't have to worry about concealment, I would recommend a .45 or some other large, relatively slower moving caliber.

"He was afraid for his life," Lambright said. "He was afraid for his safety, and then they charged him. I don't think Joe had time to make a conscious decision. I think he only had time to react to what was going on. Short answer is, he was defending his life. "

Now who is cherry picking?

"Both suspects were shot in the back," Pasadena Police Captain A.H. "Bud" Corbett said. "Not at the same angle, but both suspects were hit in the back."

My bad Julie. Dogs are good, my daughter has a Rott with the head the size of a small car...I would not want to piss her off thats for sure.

Thanks Matthew. Anyone who would shoot first and ask questions later is just looking for some serious jail time. Trigger happy people are not responsible people.

"Anyone who would shoot first and ask questions later is just looking for some serious jail time" Actually, precedent says otherwise. But reasonable gun owners will assess a situation as best they can before taking action.

You're okay, maxine!

I love a really good flour-less peanut butter cookie, especially if chocolate kisses or chunks are involved! I rarely bake sweets, though...I'm more of a savory flavors guy.

Are you on Facebook, Maxine? I'd not want to hijack this thread and turn it into cooking central. (Hey, maybe we should consider collaborating on a foodie blog on Patch. I've considered it before, but I've been concerned that certain threadjackers would wander in and be unable to refrain from wandering far off-topic.)

Seems there's more than one Maxine Weimer. ;-) Would I look for penguins, by any chance?

A follow up to that fact from Mr Clean.

http://ankeny.patch.com/blog_posts/gun-homicides-have-dropped-39-over-the-last-20-years

Yes, Travis. I have no problem with my weapon permit status being published. I consider it similar to vital statics records being published, or building permits, etc.
Whether the gov'mint has any reasonable interest in maintaining or even requiring such permits and records and the like is an entirely different issue, and not germane to the topic at hand.

Of course they should not be published. Such a list only affects law abiding citizens, and 99.7% of them do not commit crimes with their weapons. It can only be used to create fear and distrust against those who have weapons.