Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10984 comments on the Chambersburg Public Opinion story from Mar 29, 2013, titled Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square. In it, Chambersburg Public Opinion reports that:

Two local organizations are hosting a Second Amendment Freedom Rally on from noone to 2 p.m. April 6 on Courthouse Plaza in downtown Chambersburg.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chambersburg Public Opinion.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5258 Aug 6, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
Among Kleck’s findings:
For every use of a gun to commit a crime, there are three-to-four cases of guns being used in self-defense of a crime.
Assault and robbery rates are lower when victims are armed with a gun.
A gun is used in self-defense to protect its owner from crime 2.5 million times per year, an average of once every 13 seconds.
Fifteen percent of the gun defenders interviewed believed someone would have died if they had not been armed. If true, that’s an average of one life saved due to firearm self-defense every 1.3 minutes.
In nearly 75% of the cases, the victim did not know his attackers. In nearly 50% of the cases, he faced at least two attackers and in nearly 25% of the cases, there were three or more attackers. A quarter of the incidents of self-defense occurred away from the home.
Results of Kleck’s Findings
Kleck’s National Self-Defense Survey findings provided a strong argument for concealed carry laws and keeping guns in the home for self-defense purposes. It also provided a counter argument to other surveys at the time which claimed that keeping guns for the purpose of self-defense was inadvisable due to their overall danger to the gun owner and his family members.
Marvin Wolfgang, a noted criminologist who was on record favoring a ban on all firearms, even those carried by law enforcement officers, was quoted as saying that the Kleck survey was nearly foolproof, saying:“What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/a/G...
Keep on believing. LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5259 Aug 6, 2013
The most recent data from FBI Uniform Crime Reports found that in 2010, for every single justifiable homicide by a civilian using a firearm there were over 37 criminal firearm homicides.

Justifiable homicide:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...

Murder circumstances:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5260 Aug 6, 2013
In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control, which has more complete data on gun violence than the FBI, found that gun homicide outpaced "legal intervention" with a firearm by a 32-to-1 ratio.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate1...
Aphelion

Palm Bay, FL

#5261 Aug 6, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha ha. My a$$ is not a source. Funny.
Try reading a little further next time, genius.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/chambersburg-...
David Frum has a piece at thedailybeast.com “debunking” the idea of 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) annually. And he bases his, ahem, argument on a 1997 study by David Hemenway. Interestingly enough, Hemenway published another article that year in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. That one was titled “The Gun Debate’s New Mythical Number: How Many Defensive Uses Per Year?” and Hemenway shared authorship (and presumably scholarship) with Drs. Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. I mention the second study because in it they dissect what they call the “ridiculous” 2.5 million DGU number, explaining all the ways in which it could have been inflated, talking about false positives yadda, yadda, yadda. So it appears Hemenway has experience working with some dedicated gun rights opponents ...

It turns out that Cook and Ludwig published still another study in 1997, this one sponsored by the (Clinton) Department of Justice. The third study was titled Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms and also investigated DGUs. I think we can take it as a given that Cook and Ludwig avoided all of the methodological pitfalls that they complained about vis-à-vis the Kleck-Gertz study. So since 2.5 million DGUs is, according to them,“mythical,” what much more down-to-Earth, thoroughly researched and solidly substantiated number did Phil and Jens come up with?

One million, four hundred sixty thousand DGUs per year. That’s right, over 1.4 million.

So maybe that’s why Frum begins his summation with:

I wouldn’t want to suggest that defensive gun use against real dangers … is quite so rare as contact with extra-terrestrials.

Well that’s mighty big of you David, but according to Hemenway’s yuck-it-up example of sampling error, 1.2 million people have been in contact with aliens, so I guess we’ve actually had almost 22% more people involved in DGUs than have been contacted by little green men.

Frum then finishes up his little screed with this gem:

But it’s rare enough that conscientious people should think very hard about exposing themselves, their children, and their loved ones to the large and amply documented dangers of a weapon in the house.

Well let’s do a little math here; from 1999 through 2010 there were 669 ... no, you know what? Let’s count not just children, but anyone 18 and under for this stat. From ’99 through 2010 there were 1629 accidental firearm deaths among those 18 and younger. Which works out to 135.75/year, so we’ll round up to 136. That means you are 10,375 times more likely to be involved in a defensive gun use than to lose a child or young adult to a gun accident. Given that, how many of those DGUs saved the life of a child? Or their parents?

Who are the conscientious ones, David?

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/bruc...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5262 Aug 6, 2013
Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys

Abstract

Objectives—To determine the relative incidence of gun victimization versus self defense gun use by civilians in the United States, and the circumstances and probable legality of the self defense uses.

Methods—National random digit dial telephone surveys of the adult population were conducted in 1996 and 1999. The Harvard surveys appear unique among private surveys in two respects: asking (1) open ended questions about defensive gun use incidents and (2) detailed questions about both gun victimization and self defense gun use. Five criminal court judges were asked to assess whether the self reported defensive gun uses were likely to have been legal.

Results—Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly.

Conclusions—Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/2...
Aphelion

Palm Bay, FL

#5263 Aug 6, 2013
The Real Reasons Liberals Hate Guns

What occurred in Newtown, Connecticut on that fateful December 14th morning was and remains heartbreaking. The sorrow being experienced by the families of the twenty innocent children killed, along with the loved ones of the other individuals slain must remain overwhelming.

This tragedy, purpetrated by a crazed, lone 20-year old gunman, has vaulted the debate over gun control to perhaps an unprecedented level. There is, without a doubt, some type of federal gun legislation on the horizon in early 2013, perhaps as early as Wednesday, January 16th. Liberals are calling for the further disarmament of the American people, which should come as no surpise, as they are on the wrong side of this issue and if they get their way, it will make America a more dangerous place and further reduce the independence of the American people.

You see, we’ve seen how strict gun laws affect crime. Take Chicago, for example, which has some of the strictist gun laws in the nation, and is a part of Illinois, which remains, at least for now, the only state in the Union that does not have a conceal and carry law.

During the first half of 2012, there were about 250 murders in Chicago. That represents a 38% increase over the same period of time in 2011. To make matters worse, the nation overall was experiencing a decline in murders over the same period. Therefore, Chicago was bucking the trend of the nation. Simply put, more gun control in Chicago has produced more deaths resulting in Chicago becoming one of the most dangerous cities in America.

Stricter gun control leading to greater homicides, and specifically homicides by firearm, is not a phenonenon relegated to the U.S. In fact, a Harvard University study titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence” found that the nine European nations with the lowest levels of gun ownership per capita had an aggregated murder rate three times that of the nine nations with the highest levels of gun ownership.

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm. In fact, it’s likely that none of the proposals that President Obama will lay out on Wednesday would have stopped the horrific tragedy in Connecticut.

So, given that the numbers are against liberals regarding more gun control and less violence, why do liberals hate guns? Why are they so adament over the need to reduce the total number of guns owned by Americans if it doesn’t make the streets safer?

What you have to understand is that, for liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about supressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

http://www.redstate.com/stafko/2013/01/16/rea...

Since: Jul 12

Portland, Oregon

#5264 Aug 6, 2013
Trying to debate any racial hating tea bag using Limbaugh's nut juice ain't going to happen, ever. These commusist lovers buy everything from the fixed news network. America does not. Keep that dream alive tea bags and demand the shut down of the federal government, alright? The tea bags get angry, no no NO more than that.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5265 Aug 6, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
The Real Reasons Liberals Hate Guns
What occurred in Newtown, Connecticut on that fateful December 14th morning was and remains heartbreaking. The sorrow being experienced by the families of the twenty innocent children killed, along with the loved ones of the other individuals slain must remain overwhelming.
This tragedy, purpetrated by a crazed, lone 20-year old gunman, has vaulted the debate over gun control to perhaps an unprecedented level. There is, without a doubt, some type of federal gun legislation on the horizon in early 2013, perhaps as early as Wednesday, January 16th. Liberals are calling for the further disarmament of the American people, which should come as no surpise, as they are on the wrong side of this issue and if they get their way, it will make America a more dangerous place and further reduce the independence of the American people.
You see, we’ve seen how strict gun laws affect crime. Take Chicago, for example, which has some of the strictist gun laws in the nation, and is a part of Illinois, which remains, at least for now, the only state in the Union that does not have a conceal and carry law.
During the first half of 2012, there were about 250 murders in Chicago. That represents a 38% increase over the same period of time in 2011. To make matters worse, the nation overall was experiencing a decline in murders over the same period. Therefore, Chicago was bucking the trend of the nation. Simply put, more gun control in Chicago has produced more deaths resulting in Chicago becoming one of the most dangerous cities in America.
Stricter gun control leading to greater homicides, and specifically homicides by firearm, is not a phenonenon relegated to the U.S. In fact, a Harvard University study titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence” found that the nine European nations with the lowest levels of gun ownership per capita had an aggregated murder rate three times that of the nine nations with the highest levels of gun ownership.
The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm. In fact, it’s likely that none of the proposals that President Obama will lay out on Wednesday would have stopped the horrific tragedy in Connecticut.
So, given that the numbers are against liberals regarding more gun control and less violence, why do liberals hate guns? Why are they so adament over the need to reduce the total number of guns owned by Americans if it doesn’t make the streets safer?
What you have to understand is that, for liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about supressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.
http://www.redstate.com/stafko/2013/01/16/rea...
ROFLMAO!

You aren't a bit interested in being taken seriously, are you?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5266 Aug 6, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
David Frum has a piece at thedailybeast.com “debunking” the idea of 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) annually. And he bases his, ahem, argument on a 1997 study by David Hemenway. Interestingly enough, Hemenway published another article that year in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. That one was titled “The Gun Debate’s New Mythical Number: How Many Defensive Uses Per Year?” and Hemenway shared authorship (and presumably scholarship) with Drs. Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. I mention the second study because in it they dissect what they call the “ridiculous” 2.5 million DGU number, explaining all the ways in which it could have been inflated, talking about false positives yadda, yadda, yadda. So it appears Hemenway has experience working with some dedicated gun rights opponents ...
It turns out that Cook and Ludwig published still another study in 1997, this one sponsored by the (Clinton) Department of Justice. The third study was titled Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms and also investigated DGUs. I think we can take it as a given that Cook and Ludwig avoided all of the methodological pitfalls that they complained about vis-à-vis the Kleck-Gertz study. So since 2.5 million DGUs is, according to them,“mythical,” what much more down-to-Earth, thoroughly researched and solidly substantiated number did Phil and Jens come up with?
One million, four hundred sixty thousand DGUs per year. That’s right, over 1.4 million.
So maybe that’s why Frum begins his summation with:
I wouldn’t want to suggest that defensive gun use against real dangers … is quite so rare as contact with extra-terrestrials.
Well that’s mighty big of you David, but according to Hemenway’s yuck-it-up example of sampling error, 1.2 million people have been in contact with aliens, so I guess we’ve actually had almost 22% more people involved in DGUs than have been contacted by little green men.
Frum then finishes up his little screed with this gem:
But it’s rare enough that conscientious people should think very hard about exposing themselves, their children, and their loved ones to the large and amply documented dangers of a weapon in the house.
Well let’s do a little math here; from 1999 through 2010 there were 669 ... no, you know what? Let’s count not just children, but anyone 18 and under for this stat. From ’99 through 2010 there were 1629 accidental firearm deaths among those 18 and younger. Which works out to 135.75/year, so we’ll round up to 136. That means you are 10,375 times more likely to be involved in a defensive gun use than to lose a child or young adult to a gun accident. Given that, how many of those DGUs saved the life of a child? Or their parents?
Who are the conscientious ones, David?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/bruc...
I love it when the right eats its own. Frum makes a reasoned point based on empirical evidence and the gunner fringe attacks. It's just one more reason the GOP is destined to be a minority political party in the US for at least a generation.

Since: Jul 12

Portland, Oregon

#5267 Aug 6, 2013
They can easily blame President Obama for that. Everything is Obama's fault.
Aphelion

Palm Bay, FL

#5268 Aug 6, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO!
You aren't a bit interested in being taken seriously, are you?
Why should I, you been the joke here for as long as remembered. Just following your example. HAHAHA
Aphelion

Palm Bay, FL

#5269 Aug 6, 2013
Democratic left is determined to repeal the Second Amendment. Why? The answer is simple: An armed citizenry is pivotal to a self-governing republic. Our founders enshrined gun rights not because they were bloodthirsty hicks who celebrated a culture of dueling, revenge and honor. Instead, they understood that pervasive gun ownership is a bulwark against excessive state coercive power. A self-reliant people — as opposed to one subservient to rulers — must be capable of defending themselves and their families from dangerous predators. Gun rights are essential to our system of limited government and individual liberty.

For liberals, this is precisely the problem with the Second Amendment. Their aim is to erect a Scandinavian-style social democracy — a North American Sweden. The structure standing in their way is the Constitution. This is why the progressive left has been relentlessly assaulting our Judeo-Christian heritage and constitutional republic. It must vilify — and discredit — our founding principles in order to pave the way for its collectivist revolution. Nothing is more quintessentially American than our gun culture. Secular leftists hate guns because they loathe America. And they will stop at nothing — including exploiting the bodies of dead children — to achieve their radical, anti-American and anti-gun agenda.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#5270 Aug 6, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Your quotes don't prove shit. They show that there are some extreme liberals that would be okay banning all guns. But there isn't any possibility that's actually going to happen and the vast majority of Democrats reject that stance.
You've created a strawman to argue with since the actual position of Democrats on guns is completely moderate and reasonable.
But you said "no one". What is reasonable and who makes that choice? Funny how those who don't want the public armed are the ones calling control "reasonable". That's like all the whites saying black slaves are reasonable.

Since: Jul 12

Portland, Oregon

#5271 Aug 6, 2013
What right wing yapping head sold you that B.S? They saw you coming, dumb ass
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#5272 Aug 6, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that states with the strictest gun laws enjoy the lowest gun crime rates.
How do you explain that?
There is a that lie again. It was proven that that is a twist on words by you. You once again group LAWFUL gun use to to crimes.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#5273 Aug 6, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when the right eats its own. Frum makes a reasoned point based on empirical evidence and the gunner fringe attacks. It's just one more reason the GOP is destined to be a minority political party in the US for at least a generation.
Even Wild Bill Clinton ordered a study and with it being cut to the smallest numbers was over 800,000 self defense uses of guns per year. There are literally hundreds of REALISTIC numbers (by both dems and gops) not just polls which show self defense out weighs illegal gun use by vast amounts.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#5274 Aug 6, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
The most recent data from FBI Uniform Crime Reports found that in 2010, for every single justifiable homicide by a civilian using a firearm there were over 37 criminal firearm homicides.
Justifiable homicide:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...
Murder circumstances:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...
BUT law abiding citizens are less likely to shoot another person especially if just showing the gun works. Most criminals tend to flee once they realize the victim is armed so most times the gun is not even fired. You once again attempt to twist facts. As the other poster pointed out criminals are deterred by gun owners and tend to avoid them for unarmed victims thus the gun did it's job without even being shown.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#5275 Aug 6, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
A little refresher for our local gunners...
----------
Harvard Injury Control Research Center
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.
3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).
After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.
4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
"Homicide" not murders. Self defense shootings are homicides but not murders. When a cop does it then no one screams about it but when a would be victim of a violent crime does it then suddenly it's bad. I have no problem with a high homicide rate as long as it is the criminals doing the dying instead of unarmed victims.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#5276 Aug 6, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
No laws are calling for the confiscation of guns.
I don't advocate for "gun control." I advocate for gun safety.
So what do you call it when California, New york, DC, Chicago passes a gun control law? What do these laws say happens to the guns that were legal are now outlawed?

http://www.policymic.com/articles/25950/9-use...

We’ve heard it over and over again, particularly on shows like Morning Joe. Anyone who thinks that the government is “coming to take your guns” is a paranoid loon, watching for black helicopters and guarding their sheep from soldiers. Unfortunately for those formerly right leaning, Second Amendment minded folks who bought into this story, reality has come screaming up from behind well ahead of schedule.

Following the passage of “The SAFE Act” in New York State, Big Brother got busy pretty quickly grabbing up the guns. Of course nobody was reporting on it very much until they managed to collect them from the wrong guy and a judge made them give them back.

BUFFALO, N.Y.— Thursday, a state Supreme Court Judge ruled guns seized from David Lewis, 35, must be returned to him after he was incorrectly identified as violating the mental health provision of the SAFE Act.

“We know that from the health care agency to the State Police, there was some kind of breach,” said Lewis’ attorney, Jim Tresmond.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#5277 Aug 6, 2013
In an interview with the Daily Times Herald in Carroll, Iowa, state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer said governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms.

Muhlbauer, a Democrat from the western Iowa town of Manilla, is a cattleman and farmer. The newspaper reported that he owns a .410 shotgun, a .22 rifle and a .22 pistol.

“We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them,” Muhlbauer told the newspaper during a December 19 audiotaped interview.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Opinion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News James T. Hodgkinson showed all the signs before... 52 min Granite Hard Forever 40
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Frindly 6,819
News Degrading the value of citizenship: Letters to ... 1 hr spytheweb 1
News GOP victory lap after Georgia election win will... 4 hr Truth 109
News Stop those naturopaths who spread anti-vaxxer m... 4 hr Ali 1
News Our Opinion: Strong persuasion needed in dealin... (Mar '16) 7 hr Go Swimming 20
News The Odds of Evolution Are Zero 11 hr Endofdays 5
More from around the web