Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion. If you're just here to disrupt or troll, expect to get a Do Not Respond (DNR) comment and then be ignored. Insults, lies, and willful ignorance will be dealt with by normal community moderation. Disagreement by itself is not considered trolling.
As always, if you're interested in joining RKBA, message KVoimakas.
KV: An interesting article here.
Firearms accidents are at an all-time low
No one blames "our nation as a whole" for the tragic accidents that claim the lives of children, and adults, involving automobiles, swimming pools, poisonings, suffocations and falls, all of which rank far higher than firearms as causes ("Collateral damage," July 25). In fact, less than 1 percent of fatal accidents in the home are the result of firearms, according to the National Safety Council.
Let's not demonize firearms or lawful firearms owners in the search for answers to the unfortunate accidental deaths of three city-area children. Let's instead remind the public that such accidents are rare and can be prevented by taking steps to ensure that guns cannot be accessed by children or other unauthorized persons. Place unloaded guns in locked storage. Store ammunition in a locked location separate from firearms. If a gun is kept in the home for protection, make sure only authorized persons can access it. Quick-access lock boxes are suitable for this.
Through its Project ChildSafe program, the firearms industry is providing the St. Louis Police Department with gun lock safety kits and firearm safety educational materials for free distribution to residents. Other firearm safety resources can be found at www.nssf.org/safety. Firearms-related accidental fatalities are at all-time lows. Let's work to keep them there.
Steve Sanetti • Newtown, Conn.
President and CEO, National Shooting Sports Foundation
Over in VT, a WTF moment:
What amounted to an arsenal was removed from the home of a former St. Johnsbury police officer by agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms yesterday. Hundreds of firearms - rifles, pistols, and shotguns, were removed by ATF agents from the spring Street home of Phil Ciotti in a process that took all day. Vermont State Police Sgt David Petersen arrived at the residence at about 8:30 yesterday morning along with an AFT agent. Agents shortly began to remove firearms from the residence, in laundry baskets and plastic tubs, and by 5 last evening, had still reportedly not handled even half the weapons found in the residence. An ATF agent said that Ciotti, who served as a St Johnsbury police officer from June 1980 to September 1990, and a Caledonia County Sheriff's deputy between 1985 and 1999, has not been charged with a crime, indicted, or taken into custody. ATF records show that Ciotti whold a type 1 federal firearms license registered under the name "North Country Ordnance." The ATF agent told the Caledonian Record that the weapons will be inventoried, and the inventory will be filed under seal in US District Court in Burlington, and that records kept by Ciotti will also be examined. If criminal charges are filed, said the agent, that will happen once the investigation is complete. Ciotti declined to comment when asked.
Summary Kestrel9000 written based on actual physical newspaper. No link yet.
Shadan:
link
"On the other hand, the scientific reasons are likely to be familiar only to the relatively small community of scholars who study the consequences of victim self-protection: the defensive actions of crime victims have significant effects on the outcomes of crimes, and the effects of armed resistance differ from those of unarmed resistance. Previous research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies [3] and in burglaries. [4] Consistently, research also has [Page 152] indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses. These findings have been obtained with respect to robberies [5] and to assaults. [6] Cook [7] offers his unsupported personal opinion concerning robbery victims that resisting with a gun is only prudent if the robber does not have a gun. The primary data source on which Cook relies flatly contradicts this opinion. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data indicate that even in the very disadvantageous situation where the robber has a gun, victims who resist with guns are still substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways, and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all. [8]
With regard to studies of rape, although samples typically include too few cases of self-defense with a gun for separate analysis, McDermott, [9] Quinsey and Upfold, [10] Lizotte, [11] and Kleck and Sayles [12] all found that victims who resisted with some kind of weapon were less likely to have the rape attempt completed against them. Findings concerning the impact of armed resistance on whether rape victims suffer additional injuries beyond the rape itself are less clear, due to a lack of information on whether acts of resistance preceded or followed the rapist's attack. The only two rape studies with the necessary sequence information found that forceful resistance by rape victims usually follows, rather than precedes, rapist attacks inflicting additional injury, undercutting the proposition that victim resistance increases the likelihood that the victim will be hurt. [13] This is consistent with findings on robbery and assault. [14]"
One final thought from KV:
Abolish the Army.
No, seriously.
Without a standing army, we'd have less in expenses.
Without a standing army, imperialist wars...well, how often do you think those would happen?
Sure there would be a time where the expenses would get worse while we revert back to an older school of thought. Everyone between 18 and 45 would be in the military reserves, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, skin colour, religion, or any other such distinguishing characteristic. Not only would you have a massive system set up for defense of the country (that wouldn't be used offensively), you'd have a massive amount of people who would be trained with firearms (see? there's the RKBA link) which should reduce all of the 'accidents' related to firearms (more like negligence.) A firearm in every home (with the appropriate safety equipment and training provided by the US government) would help with the amount of burglaries and in-home violent crime.
Let's keep the Air Force and the Navy and the Marines. Specialty training on special equipment and all that. And if you're in the Air Force, Navy, Marines or Coast Guard, you aren't in the US Militia Reserve (or whatever the new system is called.) Without a massive standing army, how many countries do you think we could go in and occupy?