Anyone tired of the Gun Control Debate?

[Southside]

I know I am, It really makes no sense when you look at the cold hard facts from police departments. They are trying to ban assault rifles, which is stupid because the average criminal isnt rolling around with a AK-47 or a M4 Carbine/AR 15. The average criminal is packing a 357. Magnum, a 9mm, 22. Smith & Wesson or something of that nature. Universal Background checks isnt gonna work, because whens the last time you heard of a criminal registering a firearm?

[Twilly F. Sniper]

No, really? Criminals are stupid these days, stupid enough o do that. Plus, it isn't like that.
Background checks are done by the government and sent to dealers, certified ones at least.
The dealers look at criminal history [background check] (which Is what I think they should do) and not sell any firearms to the customer if there's a felony (not implying misdemeanor)
It's a simple problem. With a simple solution.

[Atonement]

Assault rifle bans are meant to target mass murderers, not common criminals.

It's a simple problem. With a simple solution.

That's incredibly uninformed. If it were simple, it would be solved, no?

In the United States, which is all I can really speak to, you are battling local, state, and federal legislative bodies. You can't just put in a blanket rule because there will always be exceptions. Furthermore, an attempt to change gun laws changes the law for military personnel, hunters, police officers, etc. Background checks aren't obligatory in every state. They change by state.

The bottom line of why gun control is so difficult to handle, just like gay marriage, abortion, and about every other hot button issue is that the federal government can't just go "This is the rule for everyone." because it doesn't have that authority. The separation of powers give states the right to make these types of choices. A federal system can't really be made since the states are the right to make their own laws for their own people.

[Nellerin]

It's a simple problem. With a simple solution.

To say that is a simple problem is just ignorance when it comes to anything about US gun laws. This has been a struggle in the US for decades, and if it were a "simple problem" it would have been fixed, there are deep-rooted issues in the US that continue to break through any legislation that is put forth.

There is not just one answer to the issue either, we need to change a big part of society in the United States before violence will go down at all.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

No, very simple. I hate when first world economics makes things much more complicated than they need to be, gun laws included.
Since when was the constitution invalid? Why is there a problem with laws in the bill of rights? If people weren't so butthurt, it would be no problem at all.

[Nellerin]

No, very simple. I hate when first world economics makes things much more complicated than they need to be, gun laws included.
Since when was the constitution invalid? Why is there a problem with laws in the bill of rights? If people weren't so butthurt, it would be no problem at all.

The constitution only applies to a MILITIA not to individual normal people. But the idiot right wing extremists have chosen to disregard that idea and try to make it seem like all people should have any gun they want.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Something needs to be done about the guns. I'm not tired of the people who are trying to stop another massacre. I'm tired of the people who are using the Constitution as a shield against any talk for change.

[Harry Smith]

Something needs to be done about the guns. I'm not tired of the people who are trying to stop another massacre. I'm tired of the people who are using the Constitution as a shield against any talk for change.

Totally agree with this, common sense never seems to come into any gun control debate, they just rely on the Constitution and then blame the massacres on the federal government some how

[sparkles]

I'm tired of hearing how the only solution is more guns.

Background checks stop thousands of felons from purchasing guns every year. There's a new bill going around to create tougher penalties for straw buyers. These are common sense reforms.

No one is advocating that we take guns away from anyone who uses them responsibly and within the realms of the current law.

[Sir Suomi]

I'm actually getting quite annoyed that everyone is calling a semi-automatic gun(Such as a Bushmaster AR-15) an assault rifle. The media, the government, and every day people need to get their heads out of their asses and realize an assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle designed for military purposes. *Sigh*(Rant over)

[Taryn98]

The constitution only applies to a MILITIA not to individual normal people. But the idiot right wing extremists have chosen to disregard that idea and try to make it seem like all people should have any gun they want.

In the case DC vs Heller, the majority Supreme Court justices wrote:

"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”."

The minority dissent agreed with your premise. Nevertheless the majority is the rule of law, so until the Supreme Court rules differently in the future, the Second Amendment applies to all people, not just the Militia.


But back to the OP's post. I'm sick of the gun discussion because both sides have their arguments, but it doesn't change anyone's mind. People have their own opinions, but no amount of evidense will change someone's thoughts on the issue. It's a lot like abortion, it's very devisive.

[Sir Suomi]

The constitution only applies to a MILITIA not to individual normal people. But the idiot right wing extremists have chosen to disregard that idea and try to make it seem like all people should have any gun they want.

Also, what's stopping me from forming my own private Militia then? It's legal as long as it's privately ran(Except in one state, I forget what it was. Possibly Wyoming?)

[Nellerin]

Also, what's stopping me from forming my own private Militia then? It's legal as long as it's privately ran(Except in one state, I forget what it was. Possibly Wyoming?)

Very few people are part of a militia, and it requires a lot of work to create one, therefore the average person shouldn't have guns unless they join a militia.

Anyways, I noticed your signature saying "slightly against same-sex marriage" so ya I see no reason to listen to someone who is obviously ignorant.

[Southside]

You hear about 20 kids dying in CT, but not the 500 plus murders in Chicago

[Harry Smith]

because the 20 kids that died in CT were killed at a tenderly young age and were innocent. As ruthless as it sounds a number of people who are killed in gun crimes are criminals so the media are less inclined to report on it.

[Sir Suomi]

Very few people are part of a militia, and it requires a lot of work to create one, therefore the average person shouldn't have guns unless they join a militia.

Anyways, I noticed your signature saying "slightly against same-sex marriage" so ya I see no reason to listen to someone who is obviously ignorant.

I'm the ignorant one? If I was the age of 17, I could go out, by myself, and call myself the damn Militia of my town if I wanted to, and it would be perfectly legal. What I was contradicting you on the militia thing is that anyone can call themselves a Militia, so saying "Only people in Militias should have firearms" is making a complete ass out of yourself.

Also, how the hell does my opinion on same sex marriage have to do with this debate? You're trying to avoid actually debating and escape by drawing attention to something else. But maybe I should just clarify my opinion on this, just so you know. When I say "Slightly against Same-Sex marriage", I mean that I don't really like it, but I'm not against it. You won't see me advocating for it, and also you won't see me going against it. I'm neutral. So now that you know, let's stay on topic, shall we?

[Harry Smith]

In my view the fact that the Constitution states that you have the right to bear arms doesn't mean that it is morally right for the general populace to have access for guns. If you look at when the US Constitution was signed it was a completely different world. The US had just gained Independence using the Militia's, it was the militia's who fought at Lexington and concord hence why the founding fathers fought that it was important. However now-days the average american isn't under attack from a foreign invader or the federal government trying to take away his land. Just because a piece of paper says you have the right to bear arms doesn't mean it's morally right.

And ask the parent's of the Newton children if there tired of the debate
Ask the classmates of the Virginia tech victims
Ask the people who went to innocently see Batman in Arizona

[Nellerin]

I'm the ignorant one? If I was the age of 17, I could go out, by myself, and call myself the damn Militia of my town if I wanted to, and it would be perfectly legal. What I was contradicting you on the militia thing is that anyone can call themselves a Militia, so saying "Only people in Militias should have firearms" is making a complete ass out of yourself.

Also, how the hell does my opinion on same sex marriage have to do with this debate? You're trying to avoid actually debating and escape by drawing attention to something else. But maybe I should just clarify my opinion on this, just so you know. When I say "Slightly against Same-Sex marriage", I mean that I don't really like it, but I'm not against it. You won't see me advocating for it, and also you won't see me going against it. I'm neutral. So now that you know, let's stay on topic, shall we?

Being a "militia" only grants you certain abilities such as the ability to organize training sessions. But an unorganized militia doesn't give you almost any more rights than an organized militia.

And organized militia's are mainly the National Guard and Navy sub-groups.

Anyways this is not the main issue. The issue that was put forth by the OP is the gun control debate. And when it comes down to it, people do not need guns almost ever.

[Sir Suomi]

Being a "militia" only grants you certain abilities such as the ability to organize training sessions. But an unorganized militia doesn't give you almost any more rights than an organized militia.

And organized militia's are mainly the National Guard and Navy sub-groups.

Anyways this is not the main issue. The issue that was put forth by the OP is the gun control debate. And when it comes down to it, people do not need guns almost ever.

Did I say they were given more rights? No. I just stated the did have the rights to bear arms. But, yes, back to the topic.

Your last statement was false. What about those who need to hunt for their own food? What do you expect them to do? Starve? Think about it for a second. I'm not saying everyone should be able to go out to Wally World and by a rifle, I'm just saying it would hurt some a lot more than others if the right to purchase firearms was restricted.

[Nellerin]

Did I say they were given more rights? No. I just stated the did have the rights to bear arms. But, yes, back to the topic.

Your last statement was false. What about those who need to hunt for their own food? What do you expect them to do? Starve? Think about it for a second. I'm not saying everyone should be able to go out to Wally World and by a rifle, I'm just saying it would hurt some a lot more than others if the right to purchase firearms was restricted.

Who still hunts for all of their food? There are virtually no areas in the US that are without access to a grocery store.

I get that some people hunt (granted it is bad for animal populations) but they are not doing it to survive.

[Harry Smith]

I'm just saying it would hurt some a lot more than others if the right to purchase firearms was restricted.

Are you being serious, your argument hinges on the basis that removing a deadly weapon from the general people would hurt more people. That's like saying a speeding limit is bad for people who wish to do competitive racing. No-one hunts for a food anymore in america, and if they want to do it they can do it with an air-rifle, you can't justify owing a revolver by saying that you enjoy hunting.

[Sir Suomi]

Who still hunts for all of their food? There are virtually no areas in the US that are without access to a grocery store.

Many people do in fact. Take for example Alaska. Many different towns are isolated, and grocery stores just can't keep enough food for the population. So they hunt whatever they find, which is often moose.

[QUOTE=sfsethfitz;2176545]I get that some people hunt (granted it is bad for animal populations) but they are not doing it to survive.

Bull Crap. Hunting HELPS the population. It keeps it from over populating, which when that happens starvation, lack of space, and diseases spread like wildfire. Have you actually DONE any research on half of claims?

[Nellerin]

[QUOTE=sfsethfitz;2176545]Who still hunts for all of their food? There are virtually no areas in the US that are without access to a grocery store.

Many people do in fact. Take for example Alaska. Many different towns are isolated, and grocery stores just can't keep enough food for the population. So they hunt whatever they find, which is often moose.



Bull Crap. Hunting HELPS the population. It keeps it from over populating, which when that happens starvation, lack of space, and diseases spread like wildfire. Have you actually DONE any research on half of claims?

Common misconception. Think about this...

When people hunt, they take out the best and strongest "trophy" deer. While they have helped bring down the population, they end up doing it in an unnatural way.

Nature would normally kill off the weakest of a group of animals, but hunters kill the strong animals that the rest of the group relies on.

So while the population numbers might "look" better, the entire group of animals is not doing as well because they are only a bunch of weak animals with no strong leader.

[Sir Suomi]

[QUOTE=Austin_;2176561]

Common misconception. Think about this...

When people hunt, they take out the best and strongest "trophy" deer. While they have helped bring down the population, they end up doing it in an unnatural way.

Nature would normally kill off the weakest of a group of animals, but hunters kill the strong animals that the rest of the group relies on.

So while the population numbers might "look" better, the entire group of animals is not doing as well because they are only a bunch of weak animals with no strong leader.

Absolutely wrong. Have you ever been to an area with an over crowded deer population? People hit deer with their car's left and right. Farmers crops can end up being harmed, which really pisses them off. It's just like putting 10 people in a bunker for 2, with enough supplies for 2. People are going to starve, not have enough space, and if someone gets sick, it won't be long until everyone else is sick.

Most hunters do not go for "Trophy" animals. You're thinking of those dumbasses on TV that go out and kill tame deer on deer ranches. It sickens me. Personally, I've only gotten one deer that could be called a "Trophy", and it was the only buck I got that year. I normally shoot does, which are always outnumbering the bucks. Out of the 9 deer I've shot(With both a muzzleloader, bow, and firearm), 2 have been bucks. The rest were does. Believe it or not, most hunters love eating the meat. It's better than most meat out there. So do not think that all hunters are those asshole hunters who just hunt for antlers. If they want them that bad, just go shed hunting.

[Harry Smith]

[QUOTE=sfsethfitz;2176565]

Absolutely wrong. Have you ever been to an area with an over crowded deer population? People hit deer with their car's left and right. Farmers crops can end up being harmed, which really pisses them off. It's just like putting 10 people in a bunker for 2, with enough supplies for 2. People are going to starve, not have enough space, and if someone gets sick, it won't be long until everyone else is sick.

Most hunters do not go for "Trophy" animals. You're thinking of those dumbasses on TV that go out and kill tame deer on deer ranches. It sickens me. Personally, I've only gotten one deer that could be called a "Trophy", and it was the only buck I got that year. I normally shoot does, which are always outnumbering the bucks. Out of the 9 deer I've shot(With both a muzzleloader, bow, and firearm), 2 have been bucks. The rest were does. Believe it or not, most hunters love eating the meat. It's better than most meat out there. So do not think that all hunters are those asshole hunters who just hunt for antlers. If they want them that bad, just go shed hunting.

Firstly I think that if you went to try and reduce animal population levels then it should be done by a federal or state level organisation rather than the average man with his 12 bore shotgun. Also yes I accept that taking away guns would limit the ability to hunt would you or would you not rather live in country where less massacres take place?

Try talking the Ian brady that gun control is a bad idea because it will stop you from hunting

[Nellerin]

[QUOTE=sfsethfitz;2176565]

Absolutely wrong. Have you ever been to an area with an over crowded deer population? People hit deer with their car's left and right. Farmers crops can end up being harmed, which really pisses them off. It's just like putting 10 people in a bunker for 2, with enough supplies for 2. People are going to starve, not have enough space, and if someone gets sick, it won't be long until everyone else is sick.

Most hunters do not go for "Trophy" animals. You're thinking of those dumbasses on TV that go out and kill tame deer on deer ranches. It sickens me. Personally, I've only gotten one deer that could be called a "Trophy", and it was the only buck I got that year. I normally shoot does, which are always outnumbering the bucks. Out of the 9 deer I've shot(With both a muzzleloader, bow, and firearm), 2 have been bucks. The rest were does. Believe it or not, most hunters love eating the meat. It's better than most meat out there. So do not think that all hunters are those asshole hunters who just hunt for antlers. If they want them that bad, just go shed hunting.

While you personally might not hunt for trophy animals, I have an entire half of my family that are avid hunters and always go for the strong animals in the pack. Plus many other friends that I know always go for the trophy animals. I'm glad you do not but a lot of people do.

Slightly off topic here though, why hunt in the first place? Just because there is over population doesn't mean killing is the answer.

The world itself is drastically overpopulated, should governments start killing people to lessen the burden on our resources.

[Sir Suomi]

Firstly I think that if you went to try and reduce animal population levels then it should be done by a federal or state level organisation rather than the average man with his 12 bore shotgun. Also yes I accept that taking away guns would limit the ability to hunt would you or would you not rather live in country where less massacres take place?

Try talking the Ian brady that gun control is a bad idea because it will stop you from hunting

And spend more money on the government level to do something that citizens are glad to do? See how far that gets.

Also, I think we need to clarify something. When you talk about banning guns, which gun are you talking about? Semi-Automatic rifles, Bolt-Action rifles, Semi-Automatic rifles, Revolvers, etc? There's a long list. Or are you stating that we should ban all of them?

[Harry Smith]

I can never understand why america has this hatred of the big bad federal government, I mean its a view which in all fairness bases back 200 years but I think its absurd that people would oppose the government wanting to help improve the country. I'm sure citizens are glad to ran there own police force, or run the courts, or maintain the highways but they don't do that. The government has a job to do.

I think personally that the best ban would be a system based on Britain where anyone who wishes to own a shotgun must get a warrant and be subject to a strong background check. However I know that would never pass through congress so I think there should be a ban on weapons which have a clip of more than 8 rounds, or that have military era features such as bayonet lugs, foregrips or folding stocks. Then after that handguns can be scaled back because the handgun was invented to be concealed

[Nellerin]

Americans love their guns, it doesn't apply to literally everyone in the US but an overwhelming amount of people would die before they let their guns be taken away.

It is a weird dysfunctional obsession with firearms that is mainly seen in the United States and therefore it is hard to pass any sort of progressive laws.

[Professional Russian]

Americans love their guns, it doesn't apply to literally everyone in the US but an overwhelming amount of people would die before they let their guns be taken away.

It is a weird dysfunctional obsession with firearms that is mainly seen in the United States and therefore it is hard to pass any sort of progressive laws.

And Thats Good

[Jakers61]

The whole gun debate only comes up when something bad happens though. Yeah it's sad that kids were killed and so on so on. But there restrictions are good enough already in my mind and I work in the law enforcement field, I'm a security guard and I carry 2 firearms on me. I've had to use one before too, this past weekend on Saturday I was forced to use myS&W AR 15 5.56. I think the gun laws are fine where they are.

[Cicero]

So you're tired of the gun debate, yet start a gun debate :confused:

I think there should be more in depth back ground checks. But no restrictions should be placed on any guns except stuff like rocket launchers and machine guns. Some people like shooting semi automatic guns, just for fun.

If people place restrictions on it, it will mean nothing. Criminals will still find ways to buy them, either through contacts or the black market. If they take away semi automatics, then the next gun to be taken away would be shotguns/sniper rifles, then when those are gone all guns in general will be banned.

http://i.imgur.com/lNxEi6z.png

[Twilly F. Sniper]

So you're tired of the gun debate, yet start a gun debate :confused:

I think there should be more in depth back ground checks. But no restrictions should be placed on any guns except stuff like rocket launchers and machine guns. Some people like shooting semi automatic guns, just for fun.

If people place restrictions on it, it will mean nothing. Criminals will still find ways to buy them, either through contacts or the black market. If they take away semi automatics, then the next gun to be taken away would be shotguns/sniper rifles, then when those are gone all guns in general will be banned.

image (http://i.imgur.com/lNxEi6z.png)

Absolutely true, In fact I will add to this.
Gun bans will actually lead to MORE murder.
Criminals "like the excitement of doing what is prohibited," or like the exhiliration from breaking the law. One predator says "If rape were legal, I would find some other law to break," which corroborates the statement entirely.
So restrictions are actually an extremely BLEAK thing for society.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

The 2nd amendment is there to protect against tyranny.

I'll put this simply. The government and the people who are involved in it (politicians) are not inherently evil. The problem is that power corrupts almost everyone. If you allow them to take away your only means of defense against that corruption, you deserve to be their slave because of your own moronity. This goes along with the background check bullshit. I suppose it would seem logical to setup a system to track every gun and gun owner in the country for public safety. Or perhaps to secure tyranny. If the government knows you have a gun and they decide to take it from you, they will.

Then there's self defense in general. Taking away guns from law abiding will not stop criminals from getting their hands on them. Law breakers simply do not obey the law. This will simply leave law-abiding citizens defenseless.

A common argument against the 2nd amendment is that the government didn't think that 200 years in the future we would have automatic weapons that could hold hundreds of bullets. If you agree with me that the founding fathers put that little clause in there to defend against tyranny than you should realize that we should have access to the same weapons the government does. I suppose the only exception to this should be missiles, tanks, etc.

Which leads me to my next argument. There are other ways to kill people. Banning guns will simply force lazy criminals to resort more... messy ways of killing. I personally would rather take a quick shot to the head than 12 stab wounds to the chest.

Interestingly enough, gun ownership has gone down over the last 20 years. On the other hand, violent crime has drastically gone up. This leads me to believe that guns are simply not the issue. This also trumps the argument that there are simply too many guns because in reality there are a lot less guns. Most guns are kept in safes these days. In the past they were hung over the fire place or put in freely accessible gun racks. Yet back then it was infrequent that you would hear about a kid taking their parents gun and shooting up a school.

In my opinion the real reason for our current state is that we've forgotten how valuable life is. If we could just remember how valuable said life is and educate our children more thoroughly about guns I don't think guns would be misused as much.

[Southside]

Background checks wont do anything..Whens the last time you heard of a criminal registering a gun?

[xmojox]

There seems to be a perception, even among certain segments of America, that Americans are all a bunch of gun-toting psychopaths. I don't understand that perception at all. Yes, there are gun owners in America. Many gun owners, in fact. Yes, we have been subjected to seemingly one heinous gun slaying after another. Looking at only these two facts through goggles of emotion, it's easy to lay the blame for these kinds of killings squarely on firearms and arrive at the notion that if all, or some certain types of, firearms were banned, then these things would never happen again. Also, through the goggles of emotion, it's easy to believe that these gun-slayings are happening at an alarmingly more frequent rate.

The opposite does appear to be true, however, according to an Associated Press article that quotes criminologist James Allen Fox of Northeastern University in Boston: "There is no pattern, there is no increase." Fox has been studying the subject of mass shootings since the 1980's when he was moved to do so by a rash of shootings in post offices around the country. These shootings are the source of the phrase going postal. Fox has concluded that these shootings that receive viral media coverage are the most rare, stating that most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

The article then goes on to speak of Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections, who has written a history of mass murders in America. Duwe concluded that the chances of being killed in a mass shooting are probably no greater than being struck by lightning. He found that mass shootings did indeed rise from the 1960's through the 1990's, but, actually dropped in the 2000's. His estimates are that there were 32 mass shootings in the 80's, 42 in the 90's, and only 26 in the first decade of the 2000's. His data shows that mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929.

The frightening media saturation that occurs when these unfortunate things happen is what gives the perception that they are happening more frequently, when they have, in fact, declined. So it seems that change is taking place, but, like all social change, it is happening slowly. We, as sane thinking beings, cannot expect our society to change overnight, when history shows us otherwise.

I'm not inclined at this point to do the research (i have too much going on right now), but I'm curious as to how these mass killings affect the ratings of the various news programs. I'd venture to guess that they show a significant increase, and, if anyone is moved to look into it, I'd be most interested in hearing what you learn. Increased ratings for any program on TV equates to more money generated through advertising revenue, and I wonder if the motives of the media for innundating the airwaves with these events is, perhaps, a tad self-serving, particularly since one of these attrocities seems to tend to trigger other similar ones.

We certainly shouldn't tamper with the document that defines our nation and our people because of the few individuals who commit these heinous crimes. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says, quite plainly, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It is a right that the founders considered to be important enough that they enumerated it in the Bill of Rights, and, the impact it has had, and continues to have, upon our nation is important enough that this right should not be tampered with for any reason whatsoever.

[anyone50]

Your never going to get everyone on the same page on this subject and as long as Congress waste time on this legislation more important matters are pushed to the side. No amount of laws or legislation will stop criminals from obtaining guns. To think that a criminal would even buy a gun from a place that requires background checks is so insane when it's so easy for them to obtain them through theft and other illegal ways. So all this new legislation they propose does nothing but make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals that may threaten thier life or property. Makes you wonder whos side the pro gun control people are really on if their objective is to make it harder for you to get a gun and protect yourself and your family when it does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals.

[xmojox]

The constitution only applies to a MILITIA not to individual normal people. But the idiot right wing extremists have chosen to disregard that idea and try to make it seem like all people should have any gun they want.

Individual, normal people are exactly what the militia is.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." — "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." — Tench Coxe, 1788.