# Time for Gun Safety Advocates to Abandon Their Strategy



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 6, 2021)

A sound suggestion considering Wednesday’s oral arguments over the New York may-issue concealed carry provision:

"This case signaled not only the court's growing hostility to restrictions on concealed carry—the subject matter of today's case—but reflects the view of some justices that there are too many gun control laws and that we need to start striking gun control laws down," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told _Newsweek_.

"A significant portion of the gun safety movement's current agenda is likely to come under attack in the coming years," Winkler added. "I think bans on assault weapons and bans on high-capacity magazines are ripe for the new Supreme Court, with its newly invigorated Second Amendment, to strike down."

[…]

Winkler urged the gun safety movement to begin shifting its agenda and move away from its current efforts, in response to Wednesday's hearing.

"It's time to stop focusing on banning particular kinds of firearms or accessories, like high-capacity magazines or assault weapons, and focus more on gun violence prevention programs, getting adequate funding for community intervention programs, lifting restrictions on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms," he said.

"The gun safety movement has reforms it can pursue. Indeed, some of these other reforms have been pursued by the movement for years, but they've been sidelined as assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans—more high-profile reforms—take center stage," Winkler added.

"I think that some of those other proposals and reforms are the wrong way to go today, given the current Supreme Court," he said.’









						SCOTUS Justices Signal They Think There Are Too Many Gun Control Laws
					

"A significant portion of the gun safety movement's current agenda is likely to come under attack in the coming years," UCLA's Adam Winkler said.




					www.newsweek.com


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 6, 2021)

Anyone who uses the term _“gun safety”_ to describe those who are opposed to the right of the people to keep and bear arms automatically and immediately discredits himself.

  But then, citing Newsweak as a source does that as well.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 6, 2021)

Lifting restrictions on the ATF won’t work either, as administrative policy is also subject to judicial review.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 6, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Winkler urged the gun safety movement to begin shifting its agenda and move away from its current efforts, in response to Wednesday's hearing.
> 
> "It's time to stop focusing on banning particular kinds of firearms or accessories, like high-capacity magazines or assault weapons, and focus more on gun violence prevention programs, getting adequate funding for community intervention programs, lifting restrictions on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms," he said.
> 
> ...


This looks like a concession of the point.
A capitulation, even.
Not that I trust these people any more than I can toss then, but this is a good sign,.


----------



## Missourian (Nov 6, 2021)

Time for Gun Safety Advocates to...admit defeat.​​​


----------



## miketx (Nov 6, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> A sound suggestion considering Wednesday’s oral arguments over the New York may-issue concealed carry provision:
> 
> "This case signaled not only the court's growing hostility to restrictions on concealed carry—the subject matter of today's case—but reflects the view of some justices that there are too many gun control laws and that we need to start striking gun control laws down," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told _Newsweek_.
> 
> ...


^^ Commie gun banner.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 6, 2021)

Gun safety?  Uh, do what?  This ain't got jack-fucking-shit to do with "gun safety".  This is all about banning gun ownership.  Either an outright legislative prohibition, or by making it too expensive and/or too complicated to own a gun.  Anyone who says otherwise is either lying, or stupid.

New York is a perfect example: only the very rich and the very politically connected (one in the same?) can get a CCW permit in that state.

In California, it costs $450 to apply for a CCW permit and there's no guarantee that you'll actually get the permit.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 6, 2021)

I guess it's not hard to find a liberal law professor to opine on anything from the murder of the unborn to high capacity firearm magazines these days. Too bad the elitist UCLA professors didn't have some sort of representative to oversee the reckless use of firearms on Hollywood movie sets.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Nov 7, 2021)

1.  Repeal "Bail Reform."  Violent offenders are just being arrested, then let go.
2.  Reinstate Anti-gang task forces in police departments and go after the gangs.
3.  If a person commits a violent crime, hold him/her/it until the trial date.
4.  Instate a mandatory heavy sentence on anyone caught with a "stolen" firearm.  
5.  If parents are found to be gang members and are repeat offenders, they lose custody of their kids.


----------



## fncceo (Nov 7, 2021)




----------



## fncceo (Nov 7, 2021)

LuckyDuck said:


> Reinstate Anti-gang task forces in police departments and go after the gangs.



Traditionally, some of the worst abuses by police departments have been by anti-gang task forces.  Including the infamous LAPD Rampart Scandal in the 1990s. 

With pressure being put on departments to do something about "gang violence", many departments were willing to look the other way as officers of those units, under similar pressure to show results (results equal arrests), violated civil rights to arrest gang members without pretext.

While appalling gang violence exists, they rarely target anyone outside of other gangs which in itself is a partial solution.  In the rare instances when innocents are harmed by gang crossfire, they are typically members of the same community that provides support and a customer base for the gang's illegal activities.

When communities are willing to work with police to curtail gang violence in their neighborhoods, then police can work within the law to curtail that violence.

Policing cannot exist without the consent and cooperation of the community being policed.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 25, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> A sound suggestion considering Wednesday’s oral arguments over the New York may-issue concealed carry provision:
> 
> "This case signaled not only the court's growing hostility to restrictions on concealed carry—the subject matter of today's case—but reflects the view of some justices that there are too many gun control laws and that we need to start striking gun control laws down," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told _Newsweek_.
> 
> ...



Not sure if you meant this, but I agree with what it appears to be saying.
Which is that instead of focusing on the firearms themselves, the better way to reduce violence is to look at what causes violence and reduce that.
For example, reduce poverty, injustice, lack of opportunities like education and jobs, make health care free so that troubled youths can be diverted away from violence, etc.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 25, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lifting restrictions on the ATF won’t work either, as administrative policy is also subject to judicial review.



The ATF is not the way to improve anything.
They are too distant from local communities to respond to their needs, desires, conditions, etc.
And just from a pure legal standpoint, the ATF should not even exist anymore.
They originally were just to raise federal revenue, which makes them inherently corrupt.
And the federal income tax of 1906 made any useful aspect of the AFT, totally unnecessary.
There is no fair or reasonable way for the ATF to operate.
Different states all have different views, values, standards, etc. and the AFT has the worst of all the states.
For example, if locals had been enforcing gun laws instead of the ATF, then the massacre at Waco would never have happened.
Texans likely were not at all upset about the Branch Davidians, just like the people in Idaho respected Randy Weaver enough to elect him the local sheriff.
How can the AFT enforce a law preventing felons from having guns, when each state has vastly different definitions of what is a felony?
To Texans a pot roach is a felony, but they certainly would not want the roach felon disarmed.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 25, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Traditionally, some of the worst abuses by police departments have been by anti-gang task forces.  Including the infamous LAPD Rampart Scandal in the 1990s.
> 
> With pressure being put on departments to do something about "gang violence", many departments were willing to look the other way as officers of those units, under similar pressure to show results (results equal arrests), violated civil rights to arrest gang members without pretext.
> 
> ...



What is the most ironic is that gangs are natural, normal, and positive.
The violence comes from things like the War on Drugs and Prohibition, that had high cash profits that could not be banked or protected by police.
And the biggest and worst gang of all is the police themselves, wearing their blue colors, attacking all rivals, getting paid to shoot innocent rivals, just following orders, patrolling far from their local community, pulling the trigger on strangers without remorse, etc.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 25, 2021)

LuckyDuck said:


> 1.  Repeal "Bail Reform."  Violent offenders are just being arrested, then let go.
> 2.  Reinstate Anti-gang task forces in police departments and go after the gangs.
> 3.  If a person commits a violent crime, hold him/her/it until the trial date.
> 4.  Instate a mandatory heavy sentence on anyone caught with a "stolen" firearm.
> 5.  If parents are found to be gang members and are repeat offenders, they lose custody of their kids.



I disagree.
What causes gangs to be a problem is entirely the fault of government.
The War on Drugs is inherently illegal because it violates the basic principle of government, which is that legal authority comes from the defense of individual rights.
No one has the inherent right to tell someone else to not do drugs, no matter how stupid drugs may be.
And the War on Drugs caused almost all the problems because it jacked up drug profits to high, poor people are enticed.
Then it prevents the use of checks, credit cards, banks, etc. for drug transactions, creating huge cash concentrations, which then requires each dealer to be armed, regardless of if a felon or not.

Not only is the War on Drugs totally self defeating, but so inherently illegal, corrupt, and evil, that is destroys any government credibility.
It makes all normal people to resent or even want to destroy government instead of seeing government as positive or useful.


----------



## Whodatsaywhodat. (Nov 25, 2021)

Of 





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> A sound suggestion considering Wednesday’s oral arguments over the New York may-issue concealed carry provision:
> 
> "This case signaled not only the court's growing hostility to restrictions on concealed carry—the subject matter of today's case—but reflects the view of some justices that there are too many gun control laws and that we need to start striking gun control laws down," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told _Newsweek_.
> 
> ...


Of Course it is.  Democrats will attack anything American.  They hate America!


----------



## Rigby5 (May 16, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lifting restrictions on the ATF won’t work either, as administrative policy is also subject to judicial review.



Should not be any ATF at all, since the 2nd amendment clearly gave all firearm jurisdiction to states only.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 16, 2022)

fncceo said:


> Traditionally, some of the worst abuses by police departments have been by anti-gang task forces.  Including the infamous LAPD Rampart Scandal in the 1990s.
> 
> With pressure being put on departments to do something about "gang violence", many departments were willing to look the other way as officers of those units, under similar pressure to show results (results equal arrests), violated civil rights to arrest gang members without pretext.
> 
> ...



It is my opinion that police cause almost all the violence, with their War on Drugs.
It raises profits, forces cash deals, prevents the use of banks, checks, or police protection, causes turf wars, etc.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Should not be any ATF at all, since the 2nd amendment clearly gave all firearm jurisdiction to states only.


You’re truly an ignoramus.

Before 2010, the Second Amendment applied solely to the Federal government – hence _Heller_, as DC is under Federal jurisdiction.

It wasn’t until 2010 that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local governments, hence _McDonald_.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Should not be any ATF at all, since the 2nd amendment clearly gave all firearm jurisdiction to states only.



  No, not to the states, either.

  Note that the Tenth Amendment mentions three entities that have powers (or rights)—the federal government, the states, and the people.

  To which entity does the right to keep and bear arms belong?  And which entity does the Second Amendment authorize to infringe this right?


----------



## Rigby5 (May 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You’re truly an ignoramus.
> 
> Before 2010, the Second Amendment applied solely to the Federal government – hence _Heller_, as DC is under Federal jurisdiction.
> 
> It wasn’t until 2010 that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local governments, hence _McDonald_.



You are making no sense.
You are saying that the 2nd amendment only restricted the federal government, and that the 14th was only incorporated after the Heller and McDonald decisions of 2010.
That is exactly what I have been saying.

That means all federal firearms laws were always illegal, and that there were always some individual firearm rights that states were never supposed to be violating.
The actual rights of individual can not legally change.
All that can happen is that the courts can stop previous violations of individual rights that previous courts failed to act on.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 26, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> No, not to the states, either.
> 
> Note that the Tenth Amendment mentions three entities that have powers (or rights)—the federal government, the states, and the people.
> 
> To which entity does the right to keep and bear arms belong?  And which entity does the Second Amendment authorize to infringe this right?



The Bill of Rights could never have had the authority to over rule states on individual rights issues, because then states would not have signed on and the federation would never have existed.

While I agree the right to keep and bear arms is individual, government did not recognize individual rights until the 14th amendment, and even after that, it was a slow judicial process.

Let us not forget that in 1779, there were states with specific religions, like Pennsylvania and Connecticut.


----------



## Stann (May 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> A sound suggestion considering Wednesday’s oral arguments over the New York may-issue concealed carry provision:
> 
> "This case signaled not only the court's growing hostility to restrictions on concealed carry—the subject matter of today's case—but reflects the view of some justices that there are too many gun control laws and that we need to start striking gun control laws down," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told _Newsweek_.
> 
> ...


When the founding fathers agreed on the second amendment  there were no assault weapons, machine guns or tanks these are modern weapons of war. They were never intended for use or ownership by civilians. No one other than police and the military should have these type weapons. They're called assault rifles for a reason. Once the sale of those is outlawed, their availability will end


----------



## Stann (May 27, 2022)

LuckyDuck said:


> 1.  Repeal "Bail Reform."  Violent offenders are just being arrested, then let go.
> 2.  Reinstate Anti-gang task forces in police departments and go after the gangs.
> 3.  If a person commits a violent crime, hold him/her/it until the trial date.
> 4.  Instate a mandatory heavy sentence on anyone caught with a "stolen" firearm.
> 5.  If parents are found to be gang members and are repeat offenders, they lose custody of their kids.


Those are all good points. Anyone who wants to buy a pistol or regular rifle for their own protection and or hunting. There should be no restrictions, just a thorough background check and they need to register the gun. As far as advanced weaponry such as assault weapons, no civilian should have access to them. They are weapons of war meant for Mass killing. They only belong in the military and the police force.


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> When the founding fathers agreed on the second amendment  there were no assault weapons, machine guns or tanks these are modern weapons of war. They were never intended for use or ownership by civilians. No one other than police and the military should have these type weapons. They're called assault rifles for a reason. Once the sale of those is outlawed, their availability will end



An AR-15 is a regular rifle…it is not a military weapon.…the reason anti- gun fanatics call it an “assault rifle” is to scare uninformed people like you.

More people each year are killed with knives…over 1,500 each year, than all rifles combined……so according to your logic….21 people killed by with this rifle in one isolated event means they need to be banned, then the 39,000 killed by cars means we need to ban cars…right?


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> Those are all good points. Anyone who wants to buy a pistol or regular rifle for their own protection and or hunting. There should be no restrictions, just a thorough background check and they need to register the gun. As far as advanced weaponry such as assault weapons, no civilian should have access to them. They are weapons of war meant for Mass killing. They only belong in the military and the police force.



Registration is only demanded by anti- gun fanstics because they need it as a first step to then demand gun banning and confiscation.

we know this because in each country that registered guns……Germany, France, Britain, Australia….and states in the U.S …New York, california….those registration lists were then later used to ban and confiscate guns….

Again..

the AR-15 is a regular rifle….that you don’t understand this and you don’t understand why the democrats want them banned shows you shouldn’t be calling for gun policy.

The only reason the want the AR-15 banned is to then demand all semi-automatic guns be banned.  The AR-15 operates the exact same way as all other semi-automatic rifles,pistols and shotguns…….if the democrats are allowed to ban one…like the AR-15, they will then state that all other semi-automatic weapons are the same as AR-15s in operation, and therefore need to be banned as well….


----------



## Stann (May 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> An AR-15 is a regular rifle…it is not a military weapon.…the reason anti- gun fanatics call it an “assault rifle” is to scare uninformed people like you.
> 
> More people each year are killed with knives…over 1,500 each year, than all rifles combined……so according to your logic….21 people killed by with this rifle in one isolated event means they need to be banned, then the 39,000 killed by cars means we need to ban cars…right?


Your logic is definitely twisted. Having said that, you probably shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.


----------



## Stann (May 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Registration is only demanded by anti- gun fanstics because they need it as a first step to then demand gun banning and confiscation.
> 
> we know this because in each country that registered guns……Germany, France, Britain, Australia….and states in the U.S …New York, california….those registration lists were then later used to ban and confiscate guns….
> 
> ...


All semi-automatic and automatic rifles should be banned, that's the bottom line. They make it too easy to kill many.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> All semi-automatic and automatic rifles should be banned, that's the bottom line. They make it too easy to kill many.



  I very much doubt that you have any clue what the terms _“automatic”_ and _“semi-automatic”_ mean as they refer to firearms.


----------



## Stann (May 27, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I very much doubt that you have any clue what the terms _“automatic”_ and _“semi-automatic”_ mean as they refer to firearms.


All I need to know, is that they kill more people faster.


----------



## Stann (May 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> All I need to know, is that they kill more people faster.


And civilians shouldn't be able to own them.


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> All semi-automatic and automatic rifles should be banned, that's the bottom line. They make it too easy to kill many.




Yep.....you don't have to tell us this...we already know what you want.... you don't have to convince us........you are an idiot...you can be told that the German socialists took guns away from Germans, and then went on to murder 15 million Europeans, who were also disarmed by their governments...

The motto is "Never Forget," not, "I already forgot."


----------



## Stann (May 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yep.....you don't have to tell us this...we already know what you want.... you don't have to convince us........you are an idiot...you can be told that the German socialists took guns away from Germans, and then went on to murder 15 million Europeans, who were also disarmed by their governments...
> 
> The motto is "Never Forget," not, "I already forgot."


Our government isn't a bunch of Nazis. On second thought, many of the Republicans are acting like Nazis.


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> Our government isn't a bunch of Nazis. On second thought, many of the Republicans are acting like Nazis.




That is what the Germans believed in the 1920s when they allowed their government to take their guns......on the promise the government would keep them safe...then, 15 years later, the socialists began the murder of 15 million people...


----------



## Stann (May 27, 2022)

L


2aguy said:


> That is what the Germans believed in the 1920s when they allowed their government to take their guns......on the promise the government would keep them safe...then, 15 years later, the socialists began the murder of 15 million people...



Let's be realistic. Canada, Australia, Norway, Israel, United Kingdom, Japan along with 88 other nations have much stricter gun control laws than we do and the statistics back up that it works.  Citing Nazi Germany as one example is ridiculous.


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> L
> 
> 
> Let's be realistic. Canada, Australia, Norway, Israel, United Kingdom, Japan along with 88 other nations have much stricter gun control laws than we do and the statistics back up that it works.  Citing Nazi Germany as one example is ridiculous.



No...the statistics don't.......that you say that shows you have no idea what you are talking about..

You think that these countries are frozen in amber, that their criminals will not evolve and become more violent as the social policies of these countries destroy their family structures, the violent 3rd world immigrants controlling their drug trafficking need more and more guns to enforce their drug territories, and that the left wing that destroyed police in the U.S. won't do the same in these left wing paradises.....

You are wrong....

Canada?

Firearms too easy to get​Marc Alain, a professor at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières and a researcher with the Centre of International Comparative Criminology, says one of the biggest drivers of gun violence is how readily available handguns have become in Quebec and throughout Canada.

------

Maria Mourani, a criminologist who has studied Montreal street gangs and written about organized crime in Quebec and around the world, says she's not surprised by the recent rise in gun violence.

Mourani says she started to notice an uptick in shootings last fall, but things have escalated in the last couple months.

"When we have shootings it means there are conflicts between different criminal groups," she said. "Fights over territory, over drugs, unpaid debts…sometimes it's just two people who disagree."

She says an ongoing war between rival gangs, the Profit Boys in Rivière-des-Prairies and Zone 43 from Montréal-Nord, is causing a lot of the bloodshed.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/gun-violence-explained-by-criminologists-1.6132114





CityNews



Part of the problem is the proliferation of guns. Although Canada has some of the strictest gun laws in the Western world, with Bill C-21 poised to make them even stricter, getting a gun has never been easier for some segments of the population, namely criminals.

“It’s not hard. They’re everywhere,” says Dwayne Beckford from behind a glass partition.

Beckford is currently remanded on gun charges at Toronto East Detention Centre. In his late 30s, he has spent most of his adult life behind bars
-------
“Everybody has them, like I said. It is scary how much there are, how easily accessible they are. Kids have them.”

Convicted of gun-related charges in the past, he recalls getting a gun was as easy as walking a dog. “They’d be cheaply bought, or just handed to you by guys in the neighbourhood.”

“Everybody has a gun these days. You talk to some guys that can easily give you what you want – to borrow, or hold, or buy.”
-----
“It’s like, ‘Yeah, here’s $80. You go do what you’ve got to do with it and come back.’ So they’re not even worried about getting caught with the weapon with X amount of bodies on it. That doesn’t even matter anymore,” he explains.

“I could find a gun in a couple of hours,” Wilson says, despite years outside of the game.

“We are seeing more firearms in the street, deadlier than we have seen before,” says Inspector Joe Matthews, the head of Toronto Police’s Guns and Gangs Unit.

In 2009, there were 259 shootings in Toronto resulting in 70 injuries and deaths. Last year, that number jumped to 462 shootings and 217 injuries and deaths. For the past five years, Toronto has witnessed more than 400 shootings a year.
--------
“The fact that innocent people are getting hit, children are getting hit. These are things we used to care about. There was a moral compass, even though we were extremely violent. There was a method to the madness. I can’t wrap my head around why they would allow it to get to the way that it’s getting, where now, the violence can spill over into their safe communities and zones.”

The end result is broken communities, broken families and lives lived in fear.

“You have people who have been terrified by people in their community, terrorized by people. So they’re afraid,” explains Fox outside the bar where her son was killed. “They’re afraid to say anything … But I mean, it has to stop somewhere. Right?”

==============



Growing gun violence in Toronot..



By the end of 2019, more than 760 people had been shot in the city, 44 of whom were killed, according to Toronto Police. That's triple the number of shooting victims in the city in 2014.

Canada has tighter gun laws than in the U.S. and suffers much less gun crime, so for many citizens, the sharp rise in gun violence in Toronto is shocking. City officials and gun control advocates are trying to figure out why the surge is happening — and what they can do to stop it.




Toronto...

EDITORIAL: Politicians silent on street check ban increasing gun crime

The fact gang and gun violence in Toronto has skyrocketed since police were banned from doing street cheeks makes them uncomfortable, lest they be accused of racism by anti-police activists if they acknowledge it.

And so at City Hall and Queen’s Park they ignore reality, saying they’re hiring more police officers, implementing new shift schedules to more effectively deploy the force and investing more money in policing and programs to address the root causes of violence.

Despite that, since street checks were banned in 2014, the number of shootings compared to 2019 is up by 178%, victims by 218% and shooting homicides by 63%.

------

Last week, recently retired police officer Sue Fisher, on the force for almost 32 years, told the Sun’s Sue-Ann Levy that the end of street checks allowed the “bad guys to take over … there’s no longer that fear (among the criminal element.)”

Today, Fisher said, officers are often running from shooting to shooting after the fact, as opposed to doing proactive policing, like street checks, to gather intelligence to prevent shootings before they occur.




According to Canada's government statistics agency, gun violence overall rose by more than 40% in Canada between 2013 and 2017, with much of that increase driven by incidents in Toronto.

Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders says that the city's recent gun violence has been connected to gang activity.

In a press conference in August, he said the Raptors incident and the August shootings "by and large have street gang connotations to them," pointing to the gang membership of the victims and those arrested. There is a thriving gang culture in Toronto centered on the illegal drug trade, largely in the city's poorer outer suburbs.


LILLEY: Gun in cop cruiser shows why bans don’t work with criminals

Ali Showbeg is now the poster child for why Justin Trudeau’s proposed gun bans simply won’t work.

If you haven’t heard of Showbeg, maybe you’ve heard of what he did. After being arrested for impaired driving on Oct. 27 in Toronto, Showbeg was caught on camera maneuvering himself to the point where he popped a handgun out of his clothing and dropped it right in his crotch.

Thank goodness the man was clearly intoxicated and not in a mood for fighting or things could have been much worse for the officers transporting him. As in, they could have been dead.
-----
As Joe Warmington reported when the event became public, Showbeg was not exactly a stranger to police. He was arrested and charged with attempted murder in 2005 for an incident that saw a car shot up in Toronto’s north end.

In 2006, he faced firearms charges that resulted in a lifetime gun ban.

So how, given that he is subject to a lifetime gun ban, did Ali Showbeg get a gun and then get that gun into the back of a squad car?

I mean, surely he would have known he was banned from owning a gun. Surely he would have known he has never taken the required safety course and passed the test to get a gun licence. So how could he have gotten a gun?

The same way the 38 year-old did when he was a much younger 23 year-old. He bought it illegally.

*Toronto left reeling after long weekend gun violence*



Officials in Toronto say more will be done to reduce gun violence after 11 people were shot, two fatally, over a holiday weekend.

The weekend of violence included a deadly shooting on Queen Street, a commercial artery, that killed two men and left one woman wounded.

The shooting happened on Saturday just before 8pm local time (12am GMT).

Gun violence in Canada's largest city appears to be taking place at a higher rate than normal.


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> L
> 
> 
> Let's be realistic. Canada, Australia, Norway, Israel, United Kingdom, Japan along with 88 other nations have much stricter gun control laws than we do and the statistics back up that it works.  Citing Nazi Germany as one example is ridiculous.




Australia?

he modus operandi of the hitmen contracted to take out Hamzy associates is to sneak up on the target - often in a public place - and pepper them with bullets.
---
OCTOBER 18, 2020 - Rafat Alameddine's former home is shot up in a drive-by shooting

OCTOBER 19, 2020 - Mejid Hamzy is shot dead in Condell Park

JANUARY 30, 2021 - Mustafa Naaman is shot dead in Hurstville in a suspected mistaken identity attack on Ibrahem Hamze

JANUARY 30, 2021 - Mejed Derbas is shot dead in Smithfield

FEBRUARY 15, 2021 - Bilal Hamze's mother Maha Hamze comes under gunfire again in another drive-by shooting at her home in Auburn

MARCH 12, 2021 - A home linked to the Alameddine family in Guildford is shot up

AUGUST 6, 2021 - Alameddine low-level associate Shady Kanj is shot in Chester Hill and found dead by police in Guildford 

AUGUST 14, 2021 - Police foil alleged gangland hit on Ibrahim Hamze when they spot stolen Mercedes in North Sydney

OCTOBER 20, 2021 - Salim and Toufik Hamze are gunned down outside their home in Guildford

NOVEMBER 10, 2021 - Drive-by shooting at Guildford home of Alameddine associate. No-one is hurt

JANUARY 6, 2022 - Brother of Bassam Hamzy, Ghassan Amoun, is shot dead at 35 years of age in a brazen daylight execution as he sat in a BMW outside an apartment building in Western Sydney.

How cops made a chilling prediction before crime boss brother killed


New article 9/1/20

Gun violence grips Victoria as deadly shootings double

More than 14 hardened criminals are being found in possession of firearms each week as the state grapples with a rising gun culture that has led to twice as many Victorians shot dead in 2019.
------
Anti-gangs division Detective Superintendent Peter Brigham said illegal firearms were routinely unearthed at the homes of drug traffickers and in the possession of “gangster types” chasing image and status.
----
In September, a 35-year-old Docklands man was sentenced to at least eight years' jail for heroin trafficking. As part of his plea deal, the former Iraqi national led police to a cache of weapons wrapped in plastic and hidden in a Melbourne drain. They included an SKS assault rifle and grenades.
---
And while handguns were proving to be the gun of choice among young men, high powered military-grade firearms were in demand from the city’s outlaw motorcycle gangs
======

Gun city: Young, dumb and armed

*The notion that a military-grade weapon could be in the hands of local criminals is shocking, but police have already seized at least five machine guns and assault rifles in the past 18 months. The AK-47 was not among them.*

Only a fortnight ago, law enforcement authorities announced they were hunting another seven assault rifles recently smuggled into the country. Weapons from the shipment have been used in armed robberies and drive-by shootings.

*These are just a handful of the thousands of illicit guns fuelling a wave of violent crime in the world’s most liveable city.

----*

Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five year

-----------

While the body count was higher during Melbourne’s ‘Underbelly War’ (1999-2005), more people have been seriously maimed in the recent spate of shootings and reprisals.

*Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns, that are smuggled into the country or stolen from licensed owners.

-------------*

These weapons have been used in dozens of recent drive-by shootings of homes and businesses, as well as targeted and random attacks in parks, shopping centres and roads.

“They’re young, dumb and armed,” said one former underworld associate, who survived a shooting attempt in the western suburbs several years ago.

“It used to be that if you were involved in something bad you might have to worry about [being shot]. Now people get shot over nothing - unprovoked.”

------------

*Gun crime soars*
In this series, Fairfax Media looks at Melbourne’s gun problem and the new breed of criminals behind the escalating violence.

The investigation has found:


There have been at least 99 shootings in the past 20 months - more than one incident a week since January 2015
Known criminals were caught with firearms 755 times last year, compared to 143 times in 2011
The epicentre of the problem is a triangle between Coolaroo, Campbellfield and Glenroy in the north-west, with Cranbourne, Narre Warren and Dandenong in the south-east close behind
Criminals are using gunshot wounds to the arms and legs as warnings to pay debts
*Assault rifles and handguns are being smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts*
In response to the violence, it can be revealed the state government is planning to introduce new criminal offences for drive-by shootings, manufacturing of firearms with new technologies such as 3D printers, and more police powers to keep weapons out of the hands of known criminals.

============

The second part of the series....

Gun city: Gunslingers of the North West


========================
'Thousands' of illegal guns tipped to be handed over in firearms amnesty

Asked roughly how many he expected to be handed in, Mr Keenan said: "Look I certainly think the number will be in the thousands."

The Australian Crime Commission estimated in 2012 there were at least 250,000 illegal guns in Australia. But a Senate report noted last year it was impossible to estimate how many illicit weapons are out there.

*And despite Australia's strict border controls, the smuggling of high-powered military-style firearms is also a growing problem.*


----------



## Stann (May 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...the statistics don't.......that you say that shows you have no idea what you are talking about..
> 
> You think that these countries are frozen in amber, that their criminals will not evolve and become more violent as the social policies of these countries destroy their family structures, the violent 3rd world immigrants controlling their drug trafficking need more and more guns to enforce their drug territories, and that the left wing that destroyed police in the U.S. won't do the same in these left wing paradises.....
> 
> ...


It goes along with ignorance and lies. The world is suffering from way too much of this and as a result there's more violence everywhere but nothing to compare with what's happening here in the United States. Long overdue resolutions are needed at this time before it gets any worse. You don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> It goes along with ignorance and lies. The world is suffering from way too much of this and as a result there's more violence everywhere but nothing to compare with what's happening here in the United States. Long overdue resolutions are needed at this time before it gets any worse. You don't know what you're talking about.




As opposed to the 1.1 million Americans who use their guns to save lives each year?

The reason our democrat party controlled cities have so much gun violence is their policies, you idiot.....normal gun owners don't use their legal guns for crime.

How do we know....27 years of actual experience......

Over  27 years,  from 1993  to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019 (in 2020 that number is 21.52 million)...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

*Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.*


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........

Why do our democrat party controlled cities have gun crime problems?

*What changed in 2015?*

The democrat party did 3 things...

1) they began a war on the police that forced officers to stop pro active police work, allowing criminals to run wild.

2) they began to release the most violent and dangerous gun offenders over and over again, not matter how many times they had been arrested for gun crimes

3) they used their brown shirts, blm/antifa to burn, loot and murder for 7 months in primarily black neighborhoods while the democrat party mayors ordered the police to stand down and not stop them......in order to hurt Trump during the election.


*You can't explain how it is that as more Americans owned and carried guns, our gun crime rate went down, our gun murder rate went down.......it only changed when the democrats enacted their war on police and their policy of releasing the most violent, most dangerous gun offenders into black neighborhoods....*


----------



## Stann (May 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> As opposed to the 1.1 million Americans who use their guns to save lives each year?
> 
> The reason our democrat party controlled cities have so much gun violence is their policies, you idiot.....normal gun owners don't use their legal guns for crime.
> 
> ...


Good legislation is needed, obviously two things need to be done 1. The total number of guns needs to be reduced greatly, and 2. Proper screening of anyone wanting to buy guns, especially those wanting to buy multiple guns, large amounts of ammunition and things like body armor. There should all be red flags.


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> All semi-automatic and automatic rifles should be banned, that's the bottom line. They make it too easy to kill many.


Automatic rifles are already essentially banned.  You need a special license and the rifle has to have been built before a certain date.  I can’t think of the last time a full auto rifle or sub machine gun was used in a murder.  Probably seventy percent of all rifles are semi automatic and virtually all pistols are as well.  Since the definition of a semi auto pistol is the it fires a single round each time the trigger is pulled, even revolvers are semi- auto pistols.


----------



## Stann (May 27, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Automatic rifles are already essentially banned.  You need a special license and the rifle has to have been built before a certain date.  I can’t think of the last time a full auto rifle or sub machine gun was used in a murder.  Probably seventy percent of all rifles are semi automatic and virtually all pistols are as well.  Since the definition of a semi auto pistol is the it fires a single round each time the trigger is pulled, even revolvers are semi- auto pistols.


That's good news about the automatic weapons. I guess it's just a semi-automatic weapons that need banning now.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> Good legislation is needed, obviously two things need to be done 1. The total number of guns needs to be reduced greatly, and 2. Proper screening of anyone wanting to buy guns, especially those wanting to buy multiple guns, large amounts of ammunition and things like body armor. There should all be red flags.



Again…..you are a dumb human being….guns do not drive gun crime…..I just showed you there is no connection between gun ownership and crime or murder rates……27 years of experience


There is a direct connection between crime and murder rates and the policies of the democrat party….we need to greatly reduce the number of democrats holding positions of power in our cities…..they are getting thousands of black Americans murdered every single year….

We already have all the screening we need………the police and school as well as friends and family knew about this guy and none of them did anything to help or stop him…..

Your god,”Government,” failed…again……….just as it did with almost all of the other mass public shooters…including the Buffalo, left wing racist shooter….


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> That's good news about the automatic weapons. I guess it's just a semi-automatic weapons that need banning now.



Please …we know……you guys want all guns banned…you can stop pretending anything less will make you happy…we know….


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> …we need to greatly reduce the number of democrats holding positions of power in our cities…..they are getting thousands of black Americans murdered every single year…



  If you count abortion, then they are getting around that many murdered every day.


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> That's good news about the automatic weapons. I guess it's just a semi-automatic weapons that need banning now.


Like I said if you ban semi-autos you ban almost all pistols and a very large percentage of rifles.  Instead of making sweeping generalizations, please tell us what you wouldn’t bab given the chance.


----------



## Stann (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Again…..you are a dumb human being….guns do not drive gun crime…..I just showed you there is no connection between gun ownership and crime or murder rates……27 years of experience
> 
> 
> There is a direct connection between crime and murder rates and the policies of the democrat party….we need to greatly reduce the number of democrats holding positions of power in our cities…..they are getting thousands of black Americans murdered every single year….
> ...


All I can say is you must be some kind of fanatic because you won't listen to anything that counters your position. Fanaticism about guns is just another red flag.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> All I can say is you must be some kind of fanatic because you won't listen to anything that counters your position. Fanaticism about guns is just another red flag.




No....I have listened to everything the anti-gun fanatics such as yourself have suggested....I have thought about each and every proposal and have found them to simply be nothing more than attempts to limit access to guns for normal, law abiding people....

As Stephen Crowder is fond of saying.......Convince me I am wrong........show me your proposals and explain specifically how they would have stopped any mass public shooter in this country..... in particular, the last one at the school....or even the Buffalo shooter...

Please.....explain, in detail......

If you are a typical anti-gun loon, you will refuse to answer....


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Like I said if you ban semi-autos you ban almost all pistols and a very large percentage of rifles.  Instead of making sweeping generalizations, please tell us what you wouldn’t bab given the chance.




That is why they are going after the AR-15....it is their gateway gun to banning all other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns...

If they are allowed to ban AR-15, they will wait for the next public shooting....another Christmas day for them.....especially if children are killed...they really hope for those........then they will point out that the pistol, rifle or shotgun that was used, is a semi-automatic weapon, just like the AR-15, and therefore, it needs to be banned as well....

Rinse, and repeat...


----------



## Natural Citizen (May 28, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lifting restrictions on the ATF won’t work either, as administrative policy is also subject to judicial review.



Can you help us all out and show us specifically where in Article III we might locate a provision for the power of judicial review, Clayton?

We'll wait.

Thanks!


----------



## Stann (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....I have listened to everything the anti-gun fanatics such as yourself have suggested....I have thought about each and every proposal and have found them to simply be nothing more than attempts to limit access to guns for normal, law abiding people....
> 
> As Stephen Crowder is fond of saying.......Convince me I am wrong........show me your proposals and explain specifically how they would have stopped any mass public shooter in this country..... in particular, the last one at the school....or even the Buffalo shooter...
> 
> ...


You refuse to accept the first premise, that there is a problem. So no matter what I say, you're not going to believe it. Try to have a good day, I plan on it.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> You refuse to accept the first premise, that there is a problem. So no matter what I say, you're not going to believe it. Try to have a good day, I plan on it.




No.....I addressed the problem and I notice, as I stated...you are not going to answer the question and give us your ideas......

You did not disappoint in your failure......

See post #48 again.....the one you refuse to address.....

You are a coward.....


----------



## Stann (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No.....I addressed the problem and I notice, as I stated...you are not going to answer the question and give us your ideas......
> 
> You did not disappoint in your failure......
> 
> ...


A good start would be to have all gun owners registered and checked. A 10-day waiting period for a gun would be a good rule too. If you can't wait 10 days ( to make a thorough check of your background  making sure you're not a risk ) to get a gun something is wrong with you. These things won't stop anyone from getting guns, except those who shouldn't have them in the first place.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> A good start would be to have all gun owners registered and checked. A 10-day waiting period for a gun would be a good rule too. If you can't wait 10 days ( to make a thorough check of your background  making sure you're not a risk ) to get a gun something is wrong with you. These things won't stop anyone from getting guns, except those who shouldn't have them in the first place.



The kid passed a Federal background check.

The kid, since passed a background check could have easily registered the gun.

He would have happily waited 10 days before going to that school.

So, nothing you just asked for would have stopped this shooting or any of the others

You got anything useful?


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> A good start would be to have all gun owners registered and checked. A 10-day waiting period for a gun would be a good rule too. If you can't wait 10 days ( to make a thorough check of your background  making sure you're not a risk ) to get a gun something is wrong with you. These things won't stop anyone from getting guns, except those who shouldn't have them in the first place.




Each suggestion I made would directly effect the choices of a mass public shooter……my suggestions would keep schools safe from nuts and left wing racists.


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> A good start would be to have all gun owners registered and checked. A 10-day waiting period for a gun would be a good rule too. If you can't wait 10 days ( to make a thorough check of your background  making sure you're not a risk ) to get a gun something is wrong with you. These things won't stop anyone from getting guns, except those who shouldn't have them in the first place.


There already is a through background check.  Waiting periods have already been shown to do nothing.  If you want to do something actually effective remove the HIPPA provisions that prevent the mentally ill from being reported as ineligible to purchase firearms.


----------



## Stann (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The kid passed a Federal background check.
> 
> The kid, since passed a background check could have easily registered the gun.
> 
> ...


That means the federal standards are too low. Whatever they are, they won't catch everyone. If they are more stringent standards they will catch more that's that's plain logic. Also if we have to have these assault rifles owned by citizens, raising the age to 21 for something that lethal isn't a bad idea either.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> That means the federal standards are too low. Whatever they are, they won't catch everyone. If they are more stringent standards they will catch more that's that's plain logic. Also if we have to have these assault rifles owned by citizens, raising the age to 21 for something that lethal isn't a bad idea either.



He didn’t have a criminal record….he didnt have a mental health commitment….mass public shooters rarely do which is why your gun laws don’t work.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> That means the federal standards are too low. Whatever they are, they won't catch everyone. If they are more stringent standards they will catch more that's that's plain logic. Also if we have to have these assault rifles owned by citizens, raising the age to 21 for something that lethal isn't a bad idea either.



He could have killed those kids with a pistol, or shotgun….the rifle didn’t matter.

You are fixated on a gun, not the problem so nothing you propose will stop mass shooters

Pistols are the gun most used by mass public shooters…..the Virginia Tech shooter used two pistols and murdered 32 adults ….so the rifle in this made no difference


----------



## Stann (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He didn’t have a criminal record….he didnt have a mental health commitment….mass public shooters rarely do which is why your gun laws don’t work.


You give up too easy that's all I can say. There are too many crazy people in this country with guns and you may well be one of them as far as I know. No matter what I say you say it doesn't work well f*** you. I'm done talking to you it's useless I'm looking for people that want to find solutions that are willing to do the extra work. If nothing else you are ambivalent to the current crisis. Which has been ongoing for at least 30 years. If the founding fathers were alive and witnessed the horrors that modern technology has brought to weaponry they would ban it all.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> You give up too easy that's all I can say. There are too many crazy people in this country with guns and you may well be one of them as far as I know. No matter what I say you say it doesn't work well f*** you. I'm done talking to you it's useless I'm looking for people that want to find solutions that are willing to do the extra work. If nothing else you are ambivalent to the current crisis. Which has been ongoing for at least 30 years. If the founding fathers were alive and witnessed the horrors that modern technology has brought to weaponry they would ban it all.




No...there aren't too many crazy people.....

330 million Americans 6 were totally nuts and committed acts of mass public shootings last year.....2 the year before and 5 the year before that....

And since I have dispatched the gun laws you want and shown they don't work, now you will storm off....

Ambivelent?

No.....I gave actual solutions that work.......you gave the tired old list of gun grabbing dreams.......as I keep saying....that shooting was Christmas for gun grabbers...you pull out wish lists, not solutions......Santa Government is the only way you can enact your dumb gun laws......


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He didn’t have a criminal record….he didnt have a mental health commitment….mass public shooters rarely do which is why your gun laws don’t work.


With two mass shootings this month alone, the right’s usual response to do nothing is further proof gun safety advocates must find other means to address the problem of gun crime and violence.

Unfortunately, conservatives will oppose any and all solutions to the problem, including solutions that have nothing to do with the regulation of firearms, resorting to their usual slippery slope fallacies, fearmongering, and lies.


----------



## Stann (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...there aren't too many crazy people.....
> 
> 330 million Americans 6 were totally nuts and committed acts of mass public shootings last year.....2 the year before and 5 the year before that....
> 
> ...


One of these days very soon the American people will be so fed up with this situation they will vote to make gun ownership illegal. That's what's coming if we can't solve this crisis. End of story as far as I'm concerned. You try to have a good day I plan on it I wasted enough time on you and you're nonsense.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> One of these days very soon the American people will be so fed up with this situation they will vote to make gun ownership illegal. That's what's coming if we can't solve this crisis. End of story as far as I'm concerned. You try to have a good day I plan on it I wasted enough time on you and you're nonsense.




And again......I pointed out why the laws you want would not have stopped this mass shooter, or most if not all of the other ones.......you have nothing else, so you go to the anti-gunner position....if you don't do what we want, we will just take your guns........

And then you storm off....

You can't even defend the laws you want....


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> With two mass shootings this month alone, the right’s usual response to do nothing is further proof gun safety advocates must find other means to address the problem of gun crime and violence.
> 
> Unfortunately, conservatives will oppose any and all solutions to the problem, including solutions that have nothing to do with the regulation of firearms, resorting to their usual slippery slope fallacies, fearmongering, and lies.




We don't have two mass shootings a month, that is a lie.......

We had 6 mass public shootings in 2021

2 in 2020

5 in 2019

These numbers come from the Mother Jones Mass Public Shooting Data Base which uses the actual FBI definition of mass public shootings.......

When you anti-gun fanatics offer actual solutions, instead of using these tragedies as emotional hammers to guilt innocent people who committed no crime into giving in to your demands, then we can talk....

How about you put up a few "solutions," and let us take a look......

I know, you have in the past, they were exposed as doing nothing, now you just use the generic term,"solutions," so you don't have your ineffective gun laws challenged in the debate...


----------



## Stann (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And again......I pointed out why the laws you want would not have stopped this mass shooter, or most if not all of the other ones.......you have nothing else, so you go to the anti-gunner position....if you don't do what we want, we will just take your guns........
> 
> And then you storm off....
> 
> You can't even defend the laws you want....


They'll be another mass shooting very soon. We didn't adopt the laws to modern times and we're paying the price for it. Sooner or later people are going to realize guns are not worth it. End of story.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> They'll be another mass shooting very soon. We didn't adopt the laws to modern times and we're paying the price for it. Sooner or later people are going to realize guns are not worth it. End of story.




Explain........

What you mean is you want the AR-15 rifle banned...not because it is more dangerous than other rifles that are the exact same rifle, but because you think you have the chance to stampede uninformed Americans into allowing you to ban this rifle....

The AR-15 is no different from any other semi-automatic rifle......rifles that have been in existence since 1885......

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies, murders, stabbings, beatings....and just this week, an American woman used her concealed carry pistol to stop a mass public shooter armed with an AR-15....so much for your theory.......

The killer could have used a pump action shotgun...in a locked room, a shotgun would have murdered those children just as easily, dittos for a revolver.....

Once again, your points fail the most basic challenge....

If there is another mass shooting it will again be anti-gun fanatic Christmas day...where you will pull out your lists of gun grabbing laws so that you can demand Santa Government grant your wishes.....


----------



## Stann (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Explain........
> 
> What you mean is you want the AR-15 rifle banned...not because it is more dangerous than other rifles that are the exact same rifle, but because you think you have the chance to stampede uninformed Americans into allowing you to ban this rifle....
> 
> ...


You gave me the final answer. Since anyone can commit these atrocities, that means no one should be allowed to have guns. It's long overdue for the human race to truly become civilized. Thank you.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> You gave me the final answer. Since anyone can commit these atrocities, that means no one should be allowed to have guns. It's long overdue for the human race to truly become civilized. Thank you.




Start with Europe...then get back to us....the only reason they haven't started butchering each other again since the 2 World War they started is because Americans with guns keep them safe from each other...


----------



## Abatis (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He could have killed those kids with a pistol, or shotgun….the rifle didn’t matter.



With the 77 minutes the cops gave him to render his carnage, he could have used the anti-gunner's proverbial flintlock . . .


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Abatis said:


> With the 77 minutes the cops gave him to render his carnage, he could have used the anti-gunner's proverbial flintlock . . .




Or used a knife or hammer..........


----------



## Hollie (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Or used a knife or hammer..........



Leftists might want to screech about an Assault Knife ban. It gives them something to do. 









						FBI Stats Show Knives Kill Far More People Than Rifles In America – It’s Not Even Close
					

Recent shootings in Atlanta and Boulder are driving a renewed push to ban "assault-style" rifles like the AR-15.




					dailycaller.com


----------



## Stann (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Start with Europe...then get back to us....the only reason they haven't started butchering each other again since the 2 World War they started is because Americans with guns keep them safe from each other...


You reaffirmed my answer. Thanks again. No one is responsible enough for these lethal weapons.


----------



## Hollie (May 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> You reaffirmed my answer. Thanks again. No one is responsible enough for these lethal weapons.


No one? There are 20 million AR-15 style rifles in the US.









						Data: US has 434 Million Guns, 20M ARs, 150M Mags :: Guns.com
					

The trade association for the U.S. firearm industry crunched the numbers and came up with one solid fact: Americans really like guns.




					www.guns.com
				





Quite obviously, Americans are _overwhelmingly_ responsible enough.


----------



## Stann (May 28, 2022)

Hollie said:


> No one? There are 20 million AR-15 style rifles in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree. I will bring it up at the next world council meeting. If humans cannot manage their own lives, I guess we will have to. There is still hope for humans after all.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He could have killed those kids with a pistol, or shotgun….the rifle didn’t matter.


Nonsense.

An AR 15 with a 30-round magazine chambered in a cartridge with a MV of more than 3,200 fps is far more deadly.

More dishonesty and lies from the right.


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> No one? There are 20 million AR-15 style rifles in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


20 million possible mass murderers, that's very disturbing.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> I disagree. I will bring it up at the next world council meeting. If humans cannot manage their own lives, I guess we will have to. There is still hope for humans after all.


Who is this ''we'' you claim will manage things?


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> 20 million possible mass murderers, that's very disturbing.


20 million responsible owners who are not mass murderers and have every intention to obey the law.

You seem unwilling to address the fact that Texas was another example of a teenager who literally screamed out his mental dysfunction and ''authorities'' did nothing.


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> 20 million responsible owners who are not mass murderers and have every intention to obey the law.
> 
> You seem unwilling to address the fact that Texas was another example of a teenager who literally screamed out his mental dysfunction and ''authorities'' did nothing.


Another teenager who shouldn't have had a high-powered rifle.


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Who is this ''we'' you claim will manage things?


Gotcha ! A little levity, I was getting bored with repeating my self over and over to deaf ears


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> 20 million responsible owners who are not mass murderers and have every intention to obey the law.
> 
> You seem unwilling to address the fact that Texas was another example of a teenager who literally screamed out his mental dysfunction and ''authorities'' did nothing.


So you do agree, the screening process needs to be much more thorough and it wouldn't hurt anyone to raise the age level for these high powered rifles to 21. Just two suggestions I made over and over.


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Leftists might want to screech about an Assault Knife ban. It gives them something to do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've never heard of killing 21 people in One night in incident. Plus knives are the choice in the world for killing because guns aren't that available. People use what is available. Less guns is another suggestion, reducing their availability was another one of my suggestions. Over 400 million guns in this country,  more than the entire continent of Africa, 40 million guns, Europe 80 million guns, South America 62 million guns, Australia 3.5 million guns. Guns are a sickness in the United States. There is no comparison, we basically have more guns than the rest of the world combined. That is not an honor, that is a disgrace, to hold such a title.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> So you do agree, the screening process needs to be much more thorough and it wouldn't hurt anyone to raise the age level for these high powered rifles to 21. Just two suggestions I made over and over.


How would you make the screening process much more thorough? I do support the requirement that states make mental health records part of the federal background check. 

However, gun crimes will continue when leftist / Democrat hell holes refuse to prosecute criminals. 


How would raising the age to 21 make anyone safer?


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> I've never heard of killing 21 people in One night in incident. Plus knives are the choice in the world for killing because guns aren't that available. People use what is available. Less guns is another suggestion, reducing their availability was another one of my suggestions. Over 400 million guns in this country,  more than the entire continent of Africa, 40 million guns, Europe 80 million guns, South America 62 million guns, Australia 3.5 million guns. Guns are a sickness in the United States. There is no comparison, we basically have more guns than the rest of the world combined. That is not an honor, that is a disgrace, to hold such a title.



Well, yes. As you noted, ''People use what is available''.

There are likely 20 million AR-style rifles in the US. Responsible, legal owners are not the problem. Overwhelming, it is those with mental illness who have access to guns who are the problem.


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Who is this ''we'' you claim will manage things?


It was a jest. But I firmly believe humans have totally mismanaged this planet and are in the process of destroying. The matter fact that we are treating a new extinction level of all the plants and animals that live on this planet with us is proof enough of that. I firmly believe that " others " / extra-terrestrials have attempted to guide our civilization on a more constructive path in the beginning without much success. You see the problem is us, our very nature's seem to work against. I'm also certain they're still out there, hoping for the best, waiting till the last possible moment, hoping we change, before the annihilate the human race in order to save the planet from us. You see life is more precious than we ever thought, and there are only 15 planets in our local supercluster of galaxies that sustain higher life forms at the present time. But that's a whole another story isn't it. ( Off subject ) . Another time and place for that discussion.


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> How would you make the screening process much more thorough? I do support the requirement that states make mental health records part of the federal background check.
> 
> However, gun crimes will continue when leftist / Democrat hell holes refuse to prosecute criminals.
> 
> ...


I am not a gun owner, that is for the experts to figure out, and as for raising the age to 21, it would give us a little more time to see if these teenagers are really stable enough to handle such a great responsibility, and allow for more screen to safeguard the rest of us you don't own guns you don't want to be intimidated and contaminated by the culture of death and guns.


----------



## surada (May 29, 2022)

whitehall said:


> I guess it's not hard to find a liberal law professor to opine on anything from the murder of the unborn to high capacity firearm magazines these days. Too bad the elitist UCLA professors didn't have some sort of representative to oversee the reckless use of firearms on Hollywood movie sets.


 That was an accident... Not domestic terrorism.


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Or used a knife or hammer..........


Dream on.


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> So you do agree, the screening process needs to be much more thorough and it wouldn't hurt anyone to raise the age level for these high powered rifles to 21. Just two suggestions I made over and over.




So the shooters wait till 21......and then shoot innocent people.


Again, nothing you suggest stops these killers...you doofus.....


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> I've never heard of killing 21 people in One night in incident. Plus knives are the choice in the world for killing because guns aren't that available. People use what is available. Less guns is another suggestion, reducing their availability was another one of my suggestions. Over 400 million guns in this country,  more than the entire continent of Africa, 40 million guns, Europe 80 million guns, South America 62 million guns, Australia 3.5 million guns. Guns are a sickness in the United States. There is no comparison, we basically have more guns than the rest of the world combined. That is not an honor, that is a disgrace, to hold such a title.




And the governments of Europe, using guns in the hands of the government murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children......Russia, the number was 25 million, 70 million in China....in Africa, the Rwandan massacre by their government murdered upwards of 600,000 people.....

Guns save lives when good people have them....they keep criminals and governments from committing murder in the millions.....

There is no comparison....governments have murdered more people than criminals with guns ever will....and you want the government, the biggest mass murderer known to man, to have the only guns......

You are really a stupid human being.


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> How would you make the screening process much more thorough? I do support the requirement that states make mental health records part of the federal background check.
> 
> However, gun crimes will continue when leftist / Democrat hell holes refuse to prosecute criminals.
> 
> ...




sorry......we just had a recent example of how anti-gun fanatics in the psychiatric field will use any mental health record to keep people from owning guns.....we had veterans who stated they had trouble sleeping having their Right to own a gun stripped.....

We have a tiny number of actually dangerously mentally ill people....

In 2021, we had 6...out of 330 million people..

2020.....2

2019....10


Out of 330 million people....

you are allowing yourself to be stampeded into giving up a sacred Right on false information, pushed by people who would happily put you in jail because you think differently from them....

Just ask former Chief D.C. correspondant for Fox News...Carl Cammeron, who stated that he thinks some journalists.....conservatives...are spreading "false information," and need to be named and put in jail....

That is who you are enabling when you support stupid, pointless gun laws.


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Well, yes. As you noted, ''People use what is available''.
> 
> There are likely 20 million AR-style rifles in the US. Responsible, legal owners are not the problem. Overwhelming, it is those with mental illness who have access to guns who are the problem.




Over 20 million AR-15s alone, not including the AK-47 semis and all the other semi-automatic rifles....

knives kill more people each year than all rifles do...as do clubs, and bare hands.......


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> So the shooters wait till 21......and then shoot innocent people.
> 
> 
> Again, nothing you suggest stops these killers...you doofus.....


All I can say is you're an idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> It was a jest. But I firmly believe humans have totally mismanaged this planet and are in the process of destroying. The matter fact that we are treating a new extinction level of all the plants and animals that live on this planet with us is proof enough of that. I firmly believe that " others " / extra-terrestrials have attempted to guide our civilization on a more constructive path in the beginning without much success. You see the problem is us, our very nature's seem to work against. I'm also certain they're still out there, hoping for the best, waiting till the last possible moment, hoping we change, before the annihilate the human race in order to save the planet from us. You see life is more precious than we ever thought, and there are only 15 planets in our local supercluster of galaxies that sustain higher life forms at the present time. But that's a whole another story isn't it. ( Off subject ) . Another time and place for that discussion.




Yep.....I keep telling people that democrats, leftists, fascists like you think the world is over populated and that humans are destroying the planet...and you never give people who believe that the power of life and death over your family....because their solutions lead to death camps and mass graves....


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> I am not a gun owner, that is for the experts to figure out, and as for raising the age to 21, it would give us a little more time to see if these teenagers are really stable enough to handle such a great responsibility, and allow for more screen to safeguard the rest of us you don't own guns you don't want to be intimidated and contaminated by the culture of death and guns.




2 teenagers............out of 41 million teenagers.........

You are an idiot...


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Over 20 million AR-15s alone, not including the AK-47 semis and all the other semi-automatic rifles....
> 
> knives kill more people each year than all rifles do...as do clubs, and bare hands.......


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

We're just totally unrelated to the gun crisis.


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> We're just totally unrelated to the gun crisis.




There is no gun crisis....there is a criminal crisis created by the democrat party and their policies in the cities they totally control...

1) They attack the police to the point the police can't do their jobs.

2) They refuse to arrest, or upon arrest, allow no bail, or low bail release of violent repeat gun offenders no matter how many times they have been arrested, no matter how many gun felonies they have.

With these policies...you would have to think the democrat party wants gun murder to increase.....and as we saw with the school shooting, they were absolutely gleeful about this shooting, it was Christmas day for them...


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> There is no gun crisis....there is a criminal crisis created by the democrat party and their policies in the cities they totally control...
> 
> 1) They attack the police to the point the police can't do their jobs.
> 
> ...


You are very sick. No one rejoices over needless death. On the other hand, death should be embraced when the time comes. It is a natural sequence of events in this physical world. Nothing to fear.


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> You are very sick. No one rejoices over needless death. On the other hand, death should be embraced when the time comes. It is a natural sequence of events in this physical world. Nothing to fear.




No...you asshats love school shootings....you are fucking gleeful when it happens......those dead children, who you drag out in front of the democrat party controlled press......are gift wrapped presents for you and your gun control dreams....


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> An AR 15 with a 30-round magazine chambered in a cartridge with a MV of more than 3,200 fps is far more deadly.
> 
> More dishonesty and lies from the right.




No....dipshit....at the range of a locked classroom it has no special lethality over a shotgun or pistol......

You are an asshole who lies with every post.


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> Another teenager who shouldn't have had a high-powered rifle.




And the other 41 million teenagers who didn't do anything that day and also could buy and own a rifle...you doofus.


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...you asshats love school shootings....you are fucking gleeful when it happens......those dead children, who you drag out in front of the democrat party controlled press......are gift wrapped presents for you and your gun control dreams....


You continue proving to me that you are a gun fascist. I did some research, testosterone levels peak in young men to the ages of 18 to 20. It can cause mental issues and heightened aggressive activity. That is why I believe raising the age to 21 for assault weapons is a very good idea is an immediate, significant drop after age 20. But of course you're going to dispute that science too.


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> You continue proving to me that you are a gun fascist. I did some research, testosterone levels peak in young men to the ages of 18 to 20. It can cause mental issues and heightened aggressive activity. That is why I believe raising the age to 21 for assault weapons is a very good idea is an immediate, significant drop after age 20. But of course you're going to dispute that science too.




Two 18 year olds bought rifles and murdered innocent people...

There are 41 million young people between the ages of 10-19

Those two are the rarest of rare individuals, who were already know by their families, schools and police to have dangerous mental health issues....

Banning guns for 18 year olds who committed no crime is the ultimate in fascist actions......you punish innocents for no reason.......you are vile...


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Two 18 year olds bought rifles and murdered innocent people...
> 
> There are 41 million young people between the ages of 10-19
> 
> ...


If you can even consider not being able to buy a weapon that can kill dozens of people in minutes a punishment you are sick.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> sorry......we just had a recent example of how anti-gun fanatics in the psychiatric field will use any mental health record to keep people from owning guns.....we had veterans who stated they had trouble sleeping having their Right to own a gun stripped.....
> 
> We have a tiny number of actually dangerously mentally ill people....
> 
> ...


I'm actually very pro 2A and pro gun ownership. Two older brothers active duty and I shoot the AI AX owned by the oldest very well. 

My point was that documented confinement to an institution for a diagnosed mental disorder could be a reason for exclusion for firearms ownership.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> However, gun crimes will continue when leftist / Democrat hell holes refuse to prosecute criminals.


This is a lie.

More dishonesty and demagoguery from the right.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> More dishonesty and demagoguery from the right.


It's not a lie. Here is a small sampling of data to support my post. You know what data is, right? You neglected to include any in your comment. 









						Charges dropped against rapper C-Blu, Accused of shooting NYPD officer
					

Police say that Williams allegedly shot an officer in the leg when the two struggled after he refused police orders.




					www.google.com
				




NEW YORK - Charges against rapper 16-year-old Camrin Williams, also known as C-Blu, have been dropped after he allegedly shot an NYPD officer.   The dropped charges drew outrage from multiple groups.










						Chicago violence: Prosecutors reject charges in deadly gang-related Austin shooting
					

Police sought to charge all suspects with murder and aggravated battery.




					www.google.com
				














						“Progressive” Prosecutors Sabotage the Rule of Law, Raise Crime Rates, and Ignore Victims
					

Introduction The American prosecutor occupies a unique role among lawyers. The prosecutor has a higher duty than other attorneys. His duty is to seek justice, not simply to obtain convictions.




					www.heritage.org
				




There is nothing progressive about the rogue prosecutor movement. Elected rogue district attorneys have not worked within the law to enhance public safety, protect victims’ rights, lower crime, and serve their community. They usurp the constitutional role of the legislative branch by refusing to prosecute entire categories of crime, abuse the role of the county prosecutor, fail to protect victims of crime, and ignore rising crime rates caused by their radical policies. They exist because George Soros and a handful of other billionaires have invested heavily in the election of district attorneys who are working to reverse engineer and dismantle a criminal justice system that, while not perfect, has resulted in the lowest crime and incarceration rates in decades


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....dipshit....at the range of a locked classroom it has no special lethality over a shotgun or pistol......
> 
> You are an asshole who lies with every post.


Your failed attempt to deflect from the lethality of AR 15s is both idiotic and dishonest.

AR 15s are in no manner comparable to handguns and shotguns – they’re not ‘just another’ firearm.

This is just as ridiculous as trying to ‘justify’ owning an AR 15 to ‘overthrow’ a Federal government perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

There are two much more compelling and appropriate reasons why AR 15s should not be banned:

Doing so represents unwarranted government excess and overreach

‘Banning’ AR 15s won’t work – it's bad public policy.

You and others on the right need to stop with the lies and demagoguery – however impossible that likely is.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> It's not a lie. Here is a small sampling of data to support my post. You know what data is, right? You neglected to include any in your comment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

The notion that Democrats refuse to prosecute criminals is a lie.


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Your failed attempt to deflect from the lethality of AR 15s is both idiotic and dishonest.
> 
> AR 15s are in no manner comparable to handguns and shotguns – they’re not ‘just another’ firearm.
> 
> ...




They are rifles.......when used in a 50 by 50 foot classroom they are no different from a shot gun or pistol in lethality.....especially in a locked classroom populated by defenseless children...you moron.

There is only one mass public shooting where the AR-15 actually made a difference and that was in Las Vegas where the range to the victims was several hundred yards, fired from a hotel room high up from the target location, you doofus.....

You are the liar.......not me.


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.
> 
> The notion that Democrats refuse to prosecute criminals is a lie.




It is the truth, you liar.....a quick sample of democrats not prosecuting or releasing violent criminals...

Chicago...

*Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot slammed Cook County’s State Attorney Kim Foxx for not bringing charges in a deadly West Side shooting – and Foxx is hitting back.*

*One person was killed and several others injured on Friday when a shootout broke out among alleged gang members in the Austin neighborhood that was caught on police cameras – but Foxx didn’t charge five suspects saying there was insufficient evidence.*









						Chicago mayor, State Attorney Kim Foxx clash over deadly shootout
					

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot ripped Cook County’s State Attorney Kim Foxx for not bringing charges in a deadly West Side shooting – and Foxx is retaliating.




					nypost.com
				




New York....

We recently looked at the results of New York City Mayor Eric Adams bringing back the special gun crimes task force of the NYPD, though these days the various units deployed around the city have the much friendlier name of Neighborhood Safety Teams. The Mayor reported that in just the first few weeks of operation, the NSTs had taken dozens of guns off the streets and made more than two dozen arrests. The vast majority of them had one thing in common. The suspects generally had prior convictions or arrests for similar crimes. So that’s some great news, right? Getting more shooters and illegal guns off the street was the stated objective and if they keep up this good work the city should see some measurable improvements. 

*There’s just one problem, however. Of those 25 suspects arrested on gun charges, how many of them do you think are still behind bars? If you guessed “one,” give yourself a cookie. All the rest of them have been sprung. (NY Post)



Remember all of those gun charges the NYPD was finally bringing? Never mind*

California...



California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

*The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration. 

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.*

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.
------------
Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


*supplying a firearm to a gang member,*

l
*felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds*



New York...



But now he may have a serious problem on his hands in the form of Alvin Bragg, the newly installed District Attorney for Manhattan. Almost immediately upon taking office, Bragg sent out a lengthy memo to all of the prosecutors under his office, issuing instructions that run almost 100% in defiance of the new mayor’s agenda. Prosecutors will be forbidden to seek jail terms for convicts in nearly all cases. In fact, to wind up behind bars at all, you’re probably going to have to literally kill someone or commit one of a handful of other extremely violent crimes. Oh, and almost nobody will be required to post bail. (NY Post)

New Manhattan DA promises to keep "emptying the jails"


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.
> 
> The notion that Democrats refuse to prosecute criminals is a lie.


This fails as a "you hurt my leftist feelings" fallacy.

Tell us about the "defend the police" screeching that was a mantra of leftist / democrat run city officials. 

Occasionally, you might try adding something more than rhetoric to your posts 









						Record Levels of Gun Violence and the Democrats’ Dilemma
					

Amid continued calls for police reform and a surge in firearm deaths, the Biden Administration and Mayor Eric Adams are trying to balance public safety and politics.




					www.google.com
				




Just weeks after taking office as Mayor of New York, Eric Adams faces a political and public-policy challenge that is vexing Democratic mayors across the country—and President Joe Biden. Gun violence in the United States is at record levels, and Democrats are under intense pressure to bring down violent crime while also curbing police abuse. More than two-thirds of the country’s largest cities, including the three largest—New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago—experienced an increase in homicides in 2021, a continuation of a surge in violence that some officials had hoped would fade as covid-19 lockdowns eased. Instead, homicides have also risen in smaller cities, such as Albuquerque, Austin, Columbus, Louisville, Nashville, Rochester, and Tucson.


----------



## Stann (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I'm actually very pro 2A and pro gun ownership. Two older brothers active duty and I shoot the AI AX owned by the oldest very well.
> 
> My point was that documented confinement to an institution for a diagnosed mental disorder could be a reason for exclusion for firearms ownership.


I'd call that a definite red flag.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Those are all good points. Anyone who wants to buy a pistol or regular rifle for their own protection and or hunting. There should be no restrictions, just a thorough background check and they need to register the gun. As far as advanced weaponry such as assault weapons, no civilian should have access to them. They are weapons of war meant for Mass killing. They only belong in the military and the police force.


Explain, in your own words, what an "assault weapon" is.


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Explain, in your own words, what an "assault weapon" is.


Any weapon that has high magazine capacity and can kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds or minutes. What people are calling semi-automatics.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Any weapon that has high magazine capacity and can kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds or minutes. What people are calling semi-automatics.




Virginia tech...2 pistols...32 killed

Luby's cafe...2 pistols, 26 killed

Russian polytechnic shooting 20 killed, 70 wounded, 5 shot pump action shotgun....

Nice, France, rental truck, 86 killed, 450 injured, 5 minutes of driving....

The rental truck killed more people than any mass public shooting in the U.S......and the 86 killed was more than the total number killed every year of mass public shootings, except for two years, since 1982...

You don't know what you are talking about....


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> A good start would be to have all gun owners registered and checked. A 10-day waiting period for a gun would be a good rule too. If you can't wait 10 days ( to make a thorough check of your background  making sure you're not a risk ) to get a gun something is wrong with you. These things won't stop anyone from getting guns, except those who shouldn't have them in the first place.



I'm sure the woman whose ex vowed to disembowel her and her baby won't need to defend herself for at least ten days. 



Stann said:


> That means the federal standards are too low. Whatever they are, they won't catch everyone. If they are more stringent standards they will catch more that's that's plain logic. Also if we have to have these assault rifles owned by citizens, raising the age to 21 for something that lethal isn't a bad idea either.



News flash: no "standard" will catch everyone. Hell, the Navy Yard shooter had a Federal SECURITY CLEARANCE! So did Nadal Hassan.



2aguy said:


> He didn’t have a criminal record….he didnt have a mental health commitment….mass public shooters rarely do which is why your gun laws don’t work.


They're not supposed to work.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> You gave me the final answer. Since anyone can commit these atrocities, that means no one should be allowed to have guns. It's long overdue for the human race to truly become civilized. Thank you.


I'm glad you believe that a woman who has been raped and strangled is better than a woman whose attacker acquired a sucking chest wound.


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Virginia tech...2 pistols...32 killed
> 
> Luby's cafe...2 pistols, 26 killed
> 
> ...


You're comparing apples with oranges. High capacity, rapid firing weapons are a menace to civilize society. There is just no place for them.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> You're comparing apples with oranges. High capacity, rapid firing weapons are a menace to civilize society. There is just no place for them.



No...they are a menace to governments who want to murder their citizens......


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...they are a menace to governments who want to murder their citizens......


Your comparing criminals to anarchists and insurrectionists. Criminals come in all colors. The profile for mass murderers in this country is; predominantly white, low achiever, low esteem, loner with the ability to rationalize the horror away. A common statement by many was, " There are other people out there that feel like me. " Instead of taking personal responsibility for their actions. Two elements create the horrible scenario we are witnessing in the United States. The availability of all types of weapons and the lack of proper screening before purchasing your gun. Those are the facts, if you're embrace them you are part of the solution, if you're disparage them you are part of the problem. It's as simple as that. This was the most comprehensive study ever done on mass murders in the United States. It included over 180 subjects over the past 25 years, their families their spouses and their friends. It's all detailed in the book, in case you'd like to learn more. The Violence Project : How to stop a mass shooting epidemic.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Your comparing criminals to anarchists and insurrectionists. Criminals come in all colors. The profile for mass murderers in this country is; predominantly white, low achiever, low esteem, loner with the ability to rationalize the horror away. A common statement by many was, " There are other people out there that feel like me. " Instead of taking personal responsibility for their actions. Two elements create the horrible scenario we are witnessing in the United States. The availability of all types of weapons and the lack of proper screening before purchasing your gun. Those are the facts, if you're embrace them you are part of the solution, if you're disparage them you are part of the problem. It's as simple as that. This was the most comprehensive study ever done on mass murders in the United States. It included over 180 subjects over the past 25 years, their families their spouses and their friends. It's all detailed in the book, in case you'd like to learn more. The Violence Project : How to stop a mass shooting epidemic.




The violence project?   Now that is funny.

We have proper screening.....the government fails to do it......

Meanwhile.....how many mass public shootings in 2021?

6...

6 individuals out of over 330 million people...out of close to 58 million people with actual mental health issues....

Number of people killed by those 6?

43

43 people out of over 330 million Americans murdered in mass public shootings in 2021....

Deer kill 200 people a year.

Ladders kill 300 people a year.

Lawn mowers between 90-100 a year.

You don't understand the issue or how you are being lied to by anti-gun fanatics.....

The last two mass public shooters, Buffalo and Texas.....were known to the police, and they didn't do anything....New York has Red Flag laws....Texas has Emergency protective orders....

We have all the laws we need, but they do nothing to stop these guys if the police refuse to arrest them for the crimes they commit before the mass shooting, or commit them for the nutty things they do before the mass public shooting...

If you don't want to actually understand the problem...you are the problem...


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The violence project?   Now that is funny.
> 
> We have proper screening.....the government fails to do it......
> 
> ...


Why do you insist on comparing apples with oranges.It just doesn't work, it's not logical, it makes no sense. You obviously don't understand anything.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Why do you insist on comparing apples with oranges.It just doesn't work, it's not logical, it makes no sense. You obviously don't understand anything.




I am not comparing apples to oranges.......


The normal magazines that are designed for rifles and pistols are not a problem....in regular crime or mass public shootings........

They are critical tools for normal people for self defense against both regular criminals and mass public shooters...

That you are fooled by the anti-gun nonsense doesn't speak well for you.


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I am not comparing apples to oranges.......
> 
> 
> The normal magazines that are designed for rifles and pistols are not a problem....in regular crime or mass public shootings........
> ...


I cited the most comprehensive study ever done on mass public shootings, you went on to disparage that study. That means you, not I, are poorly represented gun advocacy groups.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> I cited the most comprehensive study ever done on mass public shootings, you went on to disparage that study. That means you, not I, are poorly represented gun advocacy groups.






Stann said:


> Your comparing criminals to anarchists and insurrectionists. Criminals come in all colors. The profile for mass murderers in this country is; predominantly white, low achiever, low esteem, loner with the ability to rationalize the horror away. A common statement by many was, " There are other people out there that feel like me. " Instead of taking personal responsibility for their actions. Two elements create the horrible scenario we are witnessing in the United States. The availability of all types of weapons and the lack of proper screening before purchasing your gun. Those are the facts, if you're embrace them you are part of the solution, if you're disparage them you are part of the problem. It's as simple as that. This was the most comprehensive study ever done on mass murders in the United States. It included over 180 subjects over the past 25 years, their families their spouses and their friends. It's all detailed in the book, in case you'd like to learn more. The Violence Project : How to stop a mass shooting epidemic.




Oh.......I show actual mass public shooters?   Who didn't use rifles?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> I cited the most comprehensive study ever done on mass public shootings, you went on to disparage that study. That means you, not I, are poorly represented gun advocacy groups.




LInk........

Any study can be done with bad intentions........let's see what you have...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> You continue proving to me that you are a gun fascist. I did some research, testosterone levels peak in young men to the ages of 18 to 20. It can cause mental issues and heightened aggressive activity. That is why I believe raising the age to 21 for assault weapons is a very good idea is an immediate, significant drop after age 20. But of course you're going to dispute that science too.




How many mass public shooters were 20 or under?


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Oh.......I show actual mass public shooters?   Who didn't use rifles?


You take the cake, you're a real winner. Avoiding the problem doesn't solve anything. You are definitely part of the problem. Try to have a good day, I plan on it. I wasted enough time on you. You simply don't want to learn.


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> How many mass public shooters were 20 or under?
> 
> View attachment 657892


If you compare this graph with the graph of hormone levels in males you'd understand why raising the age to 21 for assault weapons is a very good idea. It's a miracle some teenagers even survive with hormone levels that high, it makes them do crazy things. There is a significant drop between the age of 20 and 21. That factor alone is worth its weight in gold. Try to have a good day, I'm out of here.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Any weapon that has high magazine capacity and can kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds or minutes. What people are calling semi-automatics.



I'm considering purchasing another handgun this afternoon. The magazine provided with the gun holds 17 rounds of ammunition, and I always carry with a round chambered:

Shadow Systems DR920 Elite 9mm Luger Full Size Semi Automatic Pistol 4.5" Barrel 17 Rounds Tritium Night Sights

Is that too many bullets?


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> You take the cake, you're a real winner. Avoiding the problem doesn't solve anything. You are definitely part of the problem. Try to have a good day, I plan on it. I wasted enough time on you. You simply don't want to learn.





You are the one avoiding the problem.  It is well known that 8% of the criminal population commits 80% of the violent crime in the USA.

Why do YOU consistently let them out of prison to prey on the innocent?

I KNOW why.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> If you compare this graph with the graph of hormone levels in males you'd understand why raising the age to 21 for assault weapons is a very good idea. It's a miracle some teenagers even survive with hormone levels that high, it makes them do crazy things. There is a significant drop between the age of 20 and 21. That factor alone is worth its weight in gold. Try to have a good day, I'm out of here.



How many 18 year olds are there?   How many are mentally ill?

How many actually commit mass public shootings?

How many do so with rifles of any kind?

You just don't understand the issue.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> You take the cake, you're a real winner. Avoiding the problem doesn't solve anything. You are definitely part of the problem. Try to have a good day, I plan on it. I wasted enough time on you. You simply don't want to learn.




You don't know what the problem is........which is why you focus on guns rather than finding the dangerously mentally ill and dealing with them...


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> You're comparing apples with oranges. High capacity, rapid firing weapons are a menace to civilize society. There is just no place for them.



Thankfully, the majority of states disagree with your anti-civil rights opinion. Anti-civil rights fascists like you are in the minority, and it's shrinking. You'll all die out soon enough.


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> How many 18 year olds are there?   How many are mentally ill?
> 
> How many actually commit mass public shootings?
> 
> ...


Seat belt safety laws affect everyone, it's for the common good. Most states have helmet laws if you ride a motorcycle a very sensible precaution because head injuries are usually severe and occur with a lot more frequency if you ride a motorcycle. In general I do not like blanket laws, because there are always exceptions to the rules. But since we are only human beings and it's possible for any one of us to make a horrible mistake with the use of guns, those most prone to become a mass shooters should be targeted. Raising the age on assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons to 21 is a very good idea. As I said before the hormone levels of 18 to 20 year olds is astronomical. It's a wonder any of them could think straight and act normal. There is a sharp drop off in these levels at age 21. If you compared both graphs like I asked you to then you would understand the problem too.


----------



## Flash (Jun 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You’re truly an ignoramus.
> 
> Before 2010, the Second Amendment applied solely to the Federal government – hence _Heller_, as DC is under Federal jurisdiction.
> 
> It wasn’t until 2010 that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local governments, hence _McDonald_.


Wrong!

The Second was always an individual right.

It took _Heller_ for DC and _McDonald _for the states to affirm it because the Libtards were ignoring it..


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

Flash said:


> Wrong!
> 
> The Second was always an individual right.
> 
> It took _Heller_ for DC and _McDonald _for the states to affirm it because the Libtards were ignoring it..


Granted by the Constitution ( federal government ). And as with all rights and privileges, they come with responsibilities also.


----------



## Flash (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Granted by the Constitution ( federal government ). And as with all rights and privileges, they come with responsibilities also.


My idea of responsibilities and your idea of responsibilities may be different.

It is good that the wording says that the right shall not be infringed or else we would have all kinds of idiots imposing their oppressive ideas of responsibility on us, huh?


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

Flash said:


> My idea of responsibilities and your idea of responsibilities may be different.
> 
> It is good that the wording says that the right shall not be infringed or else we would have all kinds of idiots imposing their oppressive ideas of responsibility on us, huh?


Responsibilities change with time and circumstances. It doesn't matter what you or I believe what those responsibilities are. That would be up to the government to decide, since they created the right in the first place.


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Responsibilities change with time and circumstances. It doesn't matter what you or I believe what those responsibilities are. That would be up to the government to decide, since they created the right in the first place.



Governments don't create rights.


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> Governments don't create rights.


The Constitution is the basis of our government. Try to argue with that one. Going back to the founding fathers I bet you didn't know that during the American revolution the founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population. The right to own a gun was only allowed if you swore an oath of loyalty to the new government. Just an interesting tibbet in the history of guns in America.


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> The Constitution is the basis of our government. Try to argue with that one. Going back to the founding fathers I bet you didn't know that during the American revolution the founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population. The right to own a gun was only allowed if you swore an oath of loyalty to the new government. Just an interesting tibbet in the history of guns in America.



That has nothing to do with the fact that governments don't create (or even grant) rights.


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

Flash said:


> My idea of responsibilities and your idea of responsibilities may be different.
> 
> It is good that the wording says that the right shall not be infringed or else we would have all kinds of idiots imposing their oppressive ideas of responsibility on us, huh?


The second amendment is misunderstood by many on the right as well as many on the left. And it's best addressed in its entirety, that explains the balance the founding fathers were trying to find. Since most of them feared a federal army, because of Independence failed, they could all be hung by a federal army. That's one of the reasons they preferred that the states create their own militias ( today's national guards ). You see the states didn't get long as they do today. So it was thought that they would never been together to harm the founding fathers in any way.


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> That has nothing to do with the fact that governments don't create (or even grant) rights.


The Constitution is the basis of all of our rights.


----------



## Briss (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> The Constitution is the basis of all of our rights.


The government's role is to _protect_ my rights.  If the government also _grants_ my rights, then I actually have no rights because the government giveth, and the government taketh away, and you're okay with that.

I have a right to protect my home.  What do you think about that?


----------



## Flash (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Responsibilities change with time and circumstances. It doesn't matter what you or I believe what those responsibilities are. That would be up to the government to decide, since they created the right in the first place.


Actually it is not up to the government.

The Bill of Rights is what protects us from government oppression.  The government (think DC in _Heller_) cannot infringe upon those rights.  Especially one that specifically says it can't be infringed.


----------



## Flash (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> The second amendment is misunderstood by many on the right as well as many on the left. And it's best addressed in its entirety, that explains the balance the founding fathers were trying to find. Since most of them feared a federal army, because of Independence failed, they could all be hung by a federal army. That's one of the reasons they preferred that the states create their own militias ( today's national guards ). You see the states didn't get long as they do today. So it was thought that they would never been together to harm the founding fathers in any way.


Sorry but you continue to be confused.

The _Heller_ case clearly ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and is not dependent upon membership to any organization.


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

Briss said:


> The government's role is to _protect_ my rights.  If the government also _grants_ my rights, then I actually have no rights because the government giveth, and the government taketh away, and you're okay with that.
> 
> I have a right to protect my home.  What do you think about that?


Everyone has the right to protect their homes. You should read up on English law that was in effect during the colonial period. That is the reason, the Constitution of the United States of America is one of the most important documents in the world.


----------



## Briss (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Everyone has the right to protect their homes.


Exactly!


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> The Constitution is the basis of all of our rights.



No it's not. It enumerates our rights, and constrains the government's ability to violate those rights. The rights themselves are natural.


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

Briss said:


> Exactly!


That wasn't true under British colonial law. A person was supposed to retreat from such a situation. You would have been charged with a crime.


----------



## Flash (Jun 14, 2022)




----------



## Briss (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> That wasn't true under British colonial law. A person was supposed to retreat from such a situation. You would have been charged with a crime.


So, if someone breaks into my house, I should assume that they mean only to take some stuff, and that they mean no harm to my wife and kids?  

I should run?


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

Flash said:


> View attachment 657996


Drag shows usually involve adult material in their acts. So in most cases not appropriate for children.


----------



## Flash (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Drag shows usually involve adult material in their acts. So in most cases not appropriate for children.


Didn't you see the pictures all over the internet today of the kids in LA that were forced to attend the filthy ass Gay Day Parade?

Or the schools and libraries that brought in Drag Queens to read stories to the kids?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Seat belt safety laws affect everyone, it's for the common good. Most states have helmet laws if you ride a motorcycle a very sensible precaution because head injuries are usually severe and occur with a lot more frequency if you ride a motorcycle. In general I do not like blanket laws, because there are always exceptions to the rules. But since we are only human beings and it's possible for any one of us to make a horrible mistake with the use of guns, those most prone to become a mass shooters should be targeted. Raising the age on assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons to 21 is a very good idea. As I said before the hormone levels of 18 to 20 year olds is astronomical. It's a wonder any of them could think straight and act normal. There is a sharp drop off in these levels at age 21. If you compared both graphs like I asked you to then you would understand the problem too.




We already have Extreme protection laws for nuts......the family, friends, school and local police did not use them......he was also torturing and murdering cats, and shooting people with a BB gun..both of which are arresting offenses...that they did not use...

It wasn't the gun, it was the people around this guy who didn't do what they should have done...that and the local police failing to do their job.

Again......about 26 million 18-23 years old in the U.S.....two committed mass public shootings......

No....this is a rare event....which is best addressed by securing the schools and having those closest to the dangerously mentally ill notifying authorities and the authorities actually doing something......arrest or committment..both of which pop on background checks....sealing off that avenue...if we are going to have Federal Background checks, it would help if the government put these nuts in the system......

Banning the most common guns based on less than 10 criminals a year is really stupid.......

In 2021 we had 6 mass public shooters...out of over 330 million people......

Your solution is stupid.....and pointless.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Seat belt safety laws affect everyone, it's for the common good. Most states have helmet laws if you ride a motorcycle a very sensible precaution because head injuries are usually severe and occur with a lot more frequency if you ride a motorcycle. In general I do not like blanket laws, because there are always exceptions to the rules. But since we are only human beings and it's possible for any one of us to make a horrible mistake with the use of guns, those most prone to become a mass shooters should be targeted. Raising the age on assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons to 21 is a very good idea. As I said before the hormone levels of 18 to 20 year olds is astronomical. It's a wonder any of them could think straight and act normal. There is a sharp drop off in these levels at age 21. If you compared both graphs like I asked you to then you would understand the problem too.




Again...as my data show.....the majority of mass public shooters are 21 or over.............making your point pretty silly.


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

Flash said:


> Didn't you see the pictures all over the internet today of the kids in LA that were forced to attend the filthy ass Gay Day Parade?
> 
> Or the schools and libraries that brought in Drag Queens to read stories to the kids?


I worked all day. A gay pride parade is quite a different story from a drag show. And I'm sure none of the children were forced to go there, their parents were be in an uproar if that was the case.


----------



## Flash (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> I worked all day. A gay pride parade is quite a different story from a drag show. And I'm sure none of the children were forced to go there, their parents were be in an uproar if that was the case.


I'm not going to take the time to go find and post them but the pictures I saw earlier today from the LA Queer Parade had drag queens and queers in every kind of inappropriate dress you can think of and kids were forced to see it.


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

Flash said:


> I'm not going to take the time to go find and post them but the pictures I saw earlier today from the LA Queer Parade had drag queens and queers in every kind of inappropriate dress you can think of and kids were forced to see it.


Like I said, I doubt if anybody was forced to watch it, this is America after all, not Russia.


----------



## Flash (Jun 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Like I said, I doubt if anybody was forced to watch it, this is America after all, not Russia.


The pictures showed the kids were forced to watch it by the Moon Bat parents.


----------



## Stann (Jun 14, 2022)

Flash said:


> The pictures showed the kids were forced to watch it by the Moon Bat parents.


If the parents thought it was okay that's all that matters. That's what I've been saying all along. The idiot the first told me about this tried to make it sound like the school officials made them watch it. I knew that wasn't true.


----------



## Briss (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Raising the age on assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons


An assault weapon and a semiautomatic weapon are the same thing . . .

Was it the pistol-grip?


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 15, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> A sound suggestion considering Wednesday’s oral arguments over the New York may-issue concealed carry provision:
> 
> "This case signaled not only the court's growing hostility to restrictions on concealed carry—the subject matter of today's case—but reflects the view of some justices that there are too many gun control laws and that we need to start striking gun control laws down," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told _Newsweek_.
> 
> ...


Time for so called "gun safety" groups to change their names to gun abolitionists.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

Briss said:


> An assault weapon and a semiautomatic weapon are the same thing . . .
> 
> Was it the pistol-grip?


Semi-automatic weapons are the weapons of choice for mass shootings, but within that group the assault style rifles are preferred. If we can't have an outright then on them, we can at least raise the age to 21. As I said before the hormone levels in teenagers reaches a peak between 18 and 20. At 21 years of age there is a dramatic drop in the hormone levels and they become a lot more sane. 21 isn't a magic age, but scientists have figured it out that it's a significant change.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann


Stann said:


> Semi-automatic weapons are the weapons of choice for mass shootings, but within that group the assault style rifles are preferred. If we can't have an outright then on them, we can at least raise the age to 21. As I said before the hormone levels in teenagers reaches a peak between 18 and 20. At 21 years of age there is a dramatic drop in the hormone levels and they become a lot more sane. 21 isn't a magic age, but scientists have figured it out that it's a significant change.




So?  They are also the most popular guns for the other 330 million Americans who own them and don't use them to shoot schools......

In 2021 we had 6 killers...out of 330 million Americans....

Each year 1.1 million Americans use their legal guns, mostly semi-automatic pistols, to stop rapes, robberies, murders, beatings and stabbings...and yes, even mass public shootings...when they are allowed to carry their legal guns....

Over 20 million Americans can legally carry guns in public for self defense......the vast majority of those are semi-automatic pistols...

So 6 killers out of 330 million Americans, and you think it is rational to adopt policies for 330 Americans based on 6 killers?

Really?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Semi-automatic weapons are the weapons of choice for mass shootings, but within that group the assault style rifles are preferred. If we can't have an outright then on them, we can at least raise the age to 21. As I said before the hormone levels in teenagers reaches a peak between 18 and 20. At 21 years of age there is a dramatic drop in the hormone levels and they become a lot more sane. 21 isn't a magic age, but scientists have figured it out that it's a significant change.




And yet actual statistics show that the majority of mass public shooters...are 21 or over.......which means that all of the 18 year olds who have semi-automatic rifle access because their families are hunters or have these rifles for self defense......who didn't shoot anyone with those rifles...will now be banned.......

Then, they can join the military and be sent over seas to shoot people with those rifles for their country....but not to protect their families at home?

That sounds rational to you?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Semi-automatic weapons are the weapons of choice for mass shootings, but within that group the assault style rifles are preferred. If we can't have an outright then on them, we can at least raise the age to 21. As I said before the hormone levels in teenagers reaches a peak between 18 and 20. At 21 years of age there is a dramatic drop in the hormone levels and they become a lot more sane. 21 isn't a magic age, but scientists have figured it out that it's a significant change.




Sure....then 21 should be for voting, enlisting in the military.........and getting an abortion......or sex blocking hormones and surgery....

Right?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Semi-automatic weapons are the weapons of choice for mass shootings, but within that group the assault style rifles are preferred. If we can't have an outright then on them, we can at least raise the age to 21. As I said before the hormone levels in teenagers reaches a peak between 18 and 20. At 21 years of age there is a dramatic drop in the hormone levels and they become a lot more sane. 21 isn't a magic age, but scientists have figured it out that it's a significant change.




Cars kill more children than all guns do......so, according to your logic, no one should be able to drive a car until 21.....

Right?

Since you are talking about testosterone levels and dangerous activities....right?


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Stann
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most people are sane, even you ? / ! Raising the age to 21 will not affect 330 million Americans. 122 million Americans own guns. That means there are households that have many guns because the total number of guns in this country is 393 million. That's a scary thought. There are 741,000 fully automatic machine guns in civilian hands, that is even more scary. Machine guns in civilian hands that's insane. Any one of us could go crazy at any moment, we are all only human having that kind of gun power in the hands of a mentally unstable person is beyond comprehension. Machine guns can fire 500 to 1,000 rounds per minute with magazines up to 4,000. These are designed for war, no other purpose, it should not be in the hands of civilians. The AR-15 s have a capacity of 30, that's bad enough. Both are weapons of war. Any person that has more than one weapon should be thoroughly vetted by the government.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Most people are sane, even you ? / ! Raising the age to 21 will not affect 330 million Americans. 122 million Americans own guns. That means there are households that have many guns because the total number of guns in this country is 393 million. That's a scary thought. There are 741,000 fully automatic machine guns in civilian hands, that is even more scary. Machine guns in civilian hands that's insane. Any one of us could go crazy at any moment, we are all only human having that kind of gun power in the hands of a mentally unstable person is beyond comprehension. Machine guns can fire 500 to 1,000 rounds per minute with magazines up to 4,000. These are designed for war, no other purpose, it should not be in the hands of civilians. The AR-15 s have a capacity of 30, that's bad enough. Both are weapons of war. Any person that has more than one weapon should be thoroughly vetted by the government.




How many of those 741,000 machine guns were used in crime or mass public shootings?

They are here, there is access...they haven't been used......


Again....the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.....what about that concept is so hard for you to understand?

It has never been used by the military, while the bolt action rifle and pump action shotgun are actual, current, weapons used by every branch of the military including the coast guard....

If you raise the age to buy a rifle...because if you limit the ability to by an AR-15, you will then come back to ban all rifles for them.......

Then you agree that we have to raise the age to vote to 21 as well....right?

The age to drive to 21 as well...right?  Since teenagers die in car accidents at higher rates than from all guns....right?

And.....of course.....we must raise the age for abortions to 21, and sex blocking hormones to 21....right?


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> How many of those 741,000 machine guns were used in crime or mass public shootings?
> 
> They are here, there is access...they haven't been used......
> 
> ...


Should we wait until somebody goes insane and uses a machine gun to mow down thousands of people instead of hundreds of people. I don't think so. It will be prudent to be proactive in this case this could be a super nightmare. If the founding fathers were alive today they were ban all these war weapons.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Should we wait until somebody goes insane and uses a machine gun to mow down thousands of people instead of hundreds of people. I don't think so. It will be prudent to be proactive in this case this could be a super nightmare. If the founding fathers were alive today they were ban all these war weapons.




Well....someone could put a suitcase nuke in a car....and blow up a city...should we wait until that happens to ban all cars?


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Well....someone could put a suitcase nuke in a car....and blow up a city...should we wait until that happens to ban all cars?


You keep proving your ignorance. I'm quite certain nuclear weapons are illegal. Otherwise, the scenario you eluded to would have already happened.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Should we wait until somebody goes insane and uses a machine gun to mow down thousands of people instead of hundreds of people. I don't think so. It will be prudent to be proactive in this case this could be a super nightmare. If the founding fathers were alive today they were ban all these war weapons.




No...they wouldn't have banned those weapons.....if the Founding Father's knew about the 15 million men, women and children murdered by their governments....after they gave up their guns...the Founding Fathers would have mandated all homes have military rifles, just like Switzerland...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> You keep proving your ignorance. I'm quite certain nuclear weapons are illegal. Otherwise, the scenario you eluded to would have already happened.




People have access to them.......so they can be used......


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...they wouldn't have banned those weapons.....if the Founding Father's knew about the 15 million men, women and children murdered by their governments....after they gave up their guns...the Founding Fathers would have mandated all homes have military rifles, just like Switzerland...


I understand you don't know history at all either. One of the first things the founding fathers did was make it illegal for citizens to own firearms " unless " they took an oath of loyalty to the new government. That's how much they cared about an individual's rights to gun ownership. Also I can't understand why you're so adamant about guns but I looked up the rules and regulations the laws on gun advocates. If you are working for the NRA, the American rifle and pistol association, the national association for gun rights, or any other gun proponent affiliations. Under federal law you must declare that before you speak on the subject. At first I thought you were just obtuse, but since you are so relentless about this, I thought maybe you work for the gun lobby. Someday in the near future I'm sure the gun all members of the gun lobby will declared domestic terrorist organizations.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> I understand you don't know history at all either. One of the first things the founding fathers did was make it illegal for citizens to own firearms " unless " they took an oath of loyalty to the new government. That's how much they cared about an individual's rights to gun ownership. Also I can't understand why you're so adamant about guns but I looked up the rules and regulations the laws on gun advocates. If you are working for the NRA, the American rifle and pistol association, the national association for gun rights, or any other gun proponent affiliations. Under federal law you must declare that before you speak on the subject. At first I thought you were just obtuse, but since you are so relentless about this, I thought maybe you work for the gun lobby. Someday in the near future I'm sure the gun all members of the gun lobby will declared domestic terrorist organizations.


I also notified the FBI of your postings. Precaution is the better part of valor.


----------



## Briss (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Semi-automatic weapons are the weapons of choice for mass shootings, but within that group the assault style rifles are preferred.


Las Vegas: Twenty-two semi-automatic rifles (58 killed).

San Francisco UPS shooting: two pistols (3 killed).

Orange County, Florida: pistol (5 killed).

Fort Lauderdale, Florida:  pistol (5 killed).

Burlington, Washington: Semi-automatic rifle (5 killed).

Orlando, Florida: Sig Sauer semi-automatic rifle and pistol (49 killed).

San Bernardino, California:  Two semi-automatic rifles and two pistols (14 killed.

Colorado Springs, Colorado: Semi-automatic rifle (3 killed).

Umpqua Community College:  Five pistols (9 killed.

Chattanooga, Tennessee: Semi-automatic rifle, pistol, and shotgun (5 killed).

Charleston, South Carolina: Pistol (9 killed).

Isla Vista, California:  Three pistols and two knives (6 killed).

Fort Hood, Texas:  Two pistols (3 killed).

Washington, D.C.: Shotgun and pistol (12 killed).

Santa Monica, California:  Semi-automatic rifle and pistol (5 killed).

Newtown, Connecticut:  Semi-automatic rifle and pistol (27 killed).

Brookfield, Wisconsin: Pistol (3 killed).

Minneapolis, Minnesota:  Pistol (6 killed).

Oak Creek, Wisconsin:  Pistol (6 killed).

Aurora, Colorado:  Semi-automatic rifle and pistol (12 killed).

Oakland, California:  Pistol (7 killed).

Seal Beach, California:  Three pistols (8 killed.

Tuscon, Arizona:  Pistol (6 killed).

Manchester, Connecticut: Pistol (8 killed).

Huntsville, Alabama:  Pistol (3 killed).

Fort Hood, Texas:  Pistol (13 killed).

Binghamton, New York:  Two pistols (13 killed).

Dekalb, Illinois:  One shotgun and three pistols (5 killed).

Omaho, Nebraska:  Semi-automatic rifle (8 killed).

Blacksburg, Virginia:  Two pistols (32 killed).

Salt Lake City, Utah: One shotgun and one pistol (5 killed).

Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania:  One shotgun, one pistol, and one bolt-action rifle (5 killed).
Golita, California: Pistol (6 killed).

Red Lake Indian Reservation, Minnesota: One shotgun and two pistols (9 killed).

Meridian Mississippi:  One shotgun and one semi-automatic rifle (5 killed).

Wakefield, Massachusetts:  Semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, and pistol (7 killed).

Honolulu, Hawaii: Pistol (7 killed).

Fort Worth, Texas:  Two pistols (7 killed).

Atlanta, Georgia:  Four pistols and one hammer (9 killed).

Columbine, Colorado: One semi-automatic rifle and one shotgun (13 killed).

Jonesboro, Arkansas:  Three semi-automatic rifles (5 killed).

Garden City, New York:  Pistol (6 killed).

San Francisco, California:  Three pistols (8 killed).

Olivehurst, California: One shotgun and one .22 rifle (4 killed).

Iowa City, Iowa:  Pistol (4 killed).

Killeen, Texas:  Two pistols (22 killed).

Jacksonville, Florida: One semi-automatic rifle and one pistol (10 killed).

Stockton, California:  One semi-automatic rifle and one pistol (5 killed).

Edmon, Oklahoma:  Three pistols (14 killed).

San Ysidro, California:  One pistol, one semi-automatic rifle, and one shotgun (21 killed).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Of those 50 incidents, 18 involved semiautomatic rifles.  Of those 18 incidents, six resulted in more than ten deaths.

Of the incident involving handguns, six resulted in more than ten deaths.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> You gave me the final answer. Since anyone can commit these atrocities, that means no one should be allowed to have guns. It's long overdue for the human race to truly become civilized. Thank you.


When the human race DOES finally become civilized, I'll be happy to surrender my weapons.  Of course, there is a couple of thousand years of history showing the human race isn't civilized at all.  If you want to depend on the good graces of criminals and tyrants for your and your family's safety, be my guest.  Just don't insist that I do so, I know too much about human nature.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

Briss said:


> Las Vegas: Twenty-two semi-automatic rifles (58 killed).
> 
> San Francisco UPS shooting: two pistols (3 killed).
> 
> ...


Were any of those mass murders acceptable to you, that's the bottom line.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> When the human race DOES finally become civilized, I'll be happy to surrender my weapons.  Of course, there is a couple of thousand years of history showing the human race isn't civilized at all.  If you want to depend on the good graces of criminals and tyrants for your and your family's safety, be my guest.  Just don't insist that I do so, I know too much about human nature.


If it does take that long the human race won't survive until then. When the worldwide famine that's coming starts affecting the advanced Nations, with let's say food shortages like are happening right now. That will either create chaos or unity. I'm betting on chaos first then unity, and once that happens. It will accelerate the whole process. Human beings intrinsically know what's needed to be done but they will always wait till the last minute to do it. An unfortunate trait in human beings I'm glad I've grown beyond that. We are all so much more than we think we are. We just need to embrace it.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> 20 million possible mass murderers, that's very disturbing.


I was taught something in basic Training, one of my Drill Sergeants told us, "There are no deadly weapons, only deadly people and I'm going to turn you worthless maggots into deadly people".  He did and I am.  Although I haven't even been tempted to kill anyone since I got out of the military, I certainly have the knowledge and capability.  I don't even hunt or fish because I choose not to use my skills.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 15, 2022)

LuckyDuck said:


> 1.  Repeal "Bail Reform."  Violent offenders are just being arrested, then let go.
> 2.  Reinstate Anti-gang task forces in police departments and go after the gangs.
> 3.  If a person commits a violent crime, hold him/her/it until the trial date.
> 4.  Instate a mandatory heavy sentence on anyone caught with a "stolen" firearm.
> 5.  If parents are found to be gang members and are repeat offenders, they lose custody of their kids.


1) Make it illegal for the NRA to donate to (bribe) politicians.
2) Gun manufacturers should be sued by the families of the victims who are killed by their guns. Run them out of business.
3) Ban AR-15s and any other semi-automatic weapons. These guns are made to slaughter human beings quickly and efficiently. That's all they are good for.
4) Repeal the 2nd Amendment. This will take time, but it's a goal.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> I was taught something in basic Training, one of my Drill Sergeants told us, "There are no deadly weapons, only deadly people and I'm going to turn you worthless maggots into deadly people".  He did and I am.  Although I haven't even been tempted to kill anyone since I got out of the military, I certainly have the knowledge and capability.  I don't even hunt or fish because I choose not to use my skills.


Thank you for that story. It sets off immediate red flag warnings. The fact that you could even consider it, means you shouldn't have any weapons at all.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> If it does take that long the human race won't survive until then. When the worldwide famine that's coming starts affecting the advanced Nations, with let's say food shortages like are happening right now. That will either create chaos or unity. I'm betting on chaos first then unity, and once that happens. It will accelerate the whole process. Human beings intrinsically know what's needed to be done but they will always wait till the last minute to do it. An unfortunate trait in human beings I'm glad I've grown beyond that. We are all so much more than we think we are. We just need to embrace it.


Well, when your prediction comes to pass, you won't be one of the survivors.  The survivors will be those ruthless enough to do literally ANYTHING to survive, and they will be heavily armed.  The unity will be imposed by armed tyrants.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Thank you for that story. It sets off immediate red flag warnings. The fact that you could even consider it, means you shouldn't have any weapons at all.


Yep, I've had over thirty years of being armed and haven't even once been tempted to harm another person OR animal.  I'm the kind of person who SHOULD have guns.  I'm no threat to anyone who doesn't harm me first. You, on the other hand, are an idiot that I wouldn't trust with a paring knife.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Well, when your prediction comes to pass, you won't be one of the survivors.  The survivors will be those ruthless enough to do literally ANYTHING to survive, and they will be heavily armed.  The unity will be imposed by armed tyrants.


My doctor gave me three to five years to live. That was 6 years ago. I do not fear death, and I welcome it when it releases me from this world. If I am one of the people that died during the chaos, so be it. I have a pretty good hunch I'll be gone before then. If not, a quick death would be preferable to having cancer for the third time. Amazingly enough, GOD has somehow made this third time around painless. I look forward to being joined with him again.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Yep, I've had over thirty years of being armed and haven't even once been tempted to harm another person OR animal.  I'm the kind of person who SHOULD have guns.  I'm no threat to anyone who doesn't harm me first. You, on the other hand, are an idiot that I wouldn't trust with a paring knife.


Whatever you believe, I reported your statement to the FBI. They can figure out what to do with you.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> It was a jest. But I firmly believe humans have totally mismanaged this planet and are in the process of destroying. The matter fact that we are treating a new extinction level of all the plants and animals that live on this planet with us is proof enough of that. I firmly believe that " others " / extra-terrestrials have attempted to guide our civilization on a more constructive path in the beginning without much success. You see the problem is us, our very nature's seem to work against. I'm also certain they're still out there, hoping for the best, waiting till the last possible moment, hoping we change, before the annihilate the human race in order to save the planet from us. You see life is more precious than we ever thought, and there are only 15 planets in our local supercluster of galaxies that sustain higher life forms at the present time. But that's a whole another story isn't it. ( Off subject ) . Another time and place for that discussion.


OK, that tells us what we need to know about you.  Don't worry; the nice men with the jacket with extra-long sleeves will be along in a few minutes to take you home.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 15, 2022)

surada said:


> That was an accident... Not domestic terrorism.


It wasn't an accident, it was negligence.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> My doctor gave me three to five years to live. That was 6 years ago. I do not fear death, and I welcome it when it releases me from this world. If I am one of the people that died during the chaos, so be it. I have a pretty good hunch I'll be gone before then. If not, a quick death would be preferable to having cancer for the third time. Amazingly enough, GOD has somehow made this third time around painless. I look forward to being joined with him again.


I'm sorry you have cancer and I hope you have a painless death rather than a painful one.  But you have some serious screws loose mentally.  I'll be charitable and blame it on your meds.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> OK, that tells us what we need to know about you.  Don't worry; the nice men with the jacket with extra-long sleeves will be along in a few minutes to take you home.


Or maybe I've just have access to more knowledge than you have had. I believe they will come for you before they come for me. Besides, my time in this world is almost up. Good luck with your life.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Or maybe I've just have access to more knowledge than you have had. I believe they will come for you before they come for me. Besides, my time in this world is almost up. Good luck with your life.


My lunch break is almost over, I haven't had time to eat talking to you idiots. I don't have any screws loose, but you might have some that need tightening. I'm sorry you don't realize who you are.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Whatever you believe, I reported your statement to the FBI. They can figure out what to do with you.


They won't have any trouble finding me, I have a security clearance.  I was bomb disposal in the Army, the government tends to keep a close eye on people with my skillset because anyone trained to disarm bombs can easily build them.


----------



## Blackrook (Jun 15, 2022)

OP is a lie. Advocating the banning of guns has nothing to do with gun safety.

Gun safety is teaching people the proper way to handle and shoot guns.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> They won't have any trouble finding me, I have a security clearance.  I was bomb disposal in the Army, the government tends to keep a close eye on people with my skillset because anyone trained to disarm bombs can easily build them.


Another red flag. The threat from within. Please don't tell me you kept some of those bombs as " souvenirs ". That would be a definite red flag, and the act of a madman. Try to have a good day I plan on it my lunch break is over I've got to go bye.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> The Constitution is the basis of our government. Try to argue with that one. Going back to the founding fathers I bet you didn't know that during the American revolution the founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population. The right to own a gun was only allowed if you swore an oath of loyalty to the new government. Just an interesting tibbet in the history of guns in America.


And the Bill of Rights is a document of things the government is FORBIDDEN to do.  Rights are inherent to the people, the government can't grant them, only take them away.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> You keep proving your ignorance. I'm quite certain nuclear weapons are illegal. Otherwise, the scenario you eluded to would have already happened.


Mass shootings are already illegal.  It doesn't stop nutcases like you from committing them occasionally.  Kidnapping is illegal, speeding is illegal, drug usage is illegal, all those laws are ignored.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Thank you for that story. It sets off immediate red flag warnings. The fact that you could even consider it, means you shouldn't have any weapons at all.


I think you will find that every veteran has a similar, or identical story.  So, I suppose those of us who have actually sacrificed sweat and blood for our country aren't worthy of having liberty in your eyes.


----------



## Briss (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Were any of those mass murders acceptable to you, that's the bottom line.


Nope.

Hmm.  I get the feeling that if people give up their semiautomatic rifles to appease you, you'll then point to the new numbers and ask me if any of _those_ murders were acceptable to me.  You would, wouldn't you?  And we both know you'd be calling for the ban of everything . . . eventually.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> I also notified the FBI of your postings. Precaution is the better part of valor.



Bring it…..you fascist prick.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> And the Bill of Rights is a document of things the government is FORBIDDEN to do.  Rights are inherent to the people, the government can't grant them, only take them away.


Actually the government has disregarded the Bill of Rights many times. The internment of the Japanese Americans is just one example.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Bring it…..you fascist prick.


OMG, Says the fascist himself.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

Briss said:


> Nope.
> 
> Hmm.  I get the feeling that if people give up their semiautomatic rifles to appease you, you'll then point to the new numbers and ask me if any of _those_ murders were acceptable to me.  You would, wouldn't you?  And we both know you'd be calling for the ban of everything . . . eventually.


It's not to appease me, it is long overdue. The public will not take much more of this garbage. Instead of a call to arms, it will be a call to disarm.


----------



## Briss (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> It's not to appease me, it is long overdue. The public will not take much more of this garbage. Instead of a call to arms, it will be a call to disarm.


I see . . .

And since criminals are notorious for responding to calls to disarm, I won't have to worry about them once they disarm.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Actually the government has disregarded the Bill of Rights many times. The internment of the Japanese Americans is just one example.




Yes.....the democrats interned Japanese, Italian and German citizens.........just like the socialists in Europe did...but our Constitution and Bill of Rights acted as a cultural restraint, so the democrats didn't cross the line into murder the way their buddies across the Atlantic did....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> OMG, Says the fascist himself.




Your the one who wants to violate the Bill of Rights, not me...

I am, however, always curious when big government types like you call limited government types like me fascists......I am the exact opposite of fascist, while you guys love you some big government...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> It's not to appease me, it is long overdue. The public will not take much more of this garbage. Instead of a call to arms, it will be a call to disarm.




Yeah....no....

People are becoming more sophisticated on this issue....

*New polling shows that support for an "assault weapons" ban in the United States has hit an all-time low despite calls from Democrats to implement a ban following a deadly mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.*
*
In a Quinnipiac University poll, conducted last week and published on Tuesday, 50 percent of registered voters support a nationwide ban on semi-automatic long guns compared to 45% who oppose which represents the lowest level of support since February 2013 when Quinnipiac began asking that question.
*
*The highest level of support for the ban was 67% in February 2018, days after the Parkland school shooting that left 17 people dead.*









						Support for 'assault weapons' ban hits all-time low following Uvalde shooting: Poll
					

A new Quinnipiac University poll shows that support for a federal assault weapons ban has hit an all-time low despite being pushed by prominent Democrats nationwide.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

Briss said:


> I see . . .
> 
> And since criminals are notorious for responding to calls to disarm, I won't have to worry about them once they disarm.


You'd be a better off without the gun. People who are victimized by criminals that have guns in their possession are 4.46 * more likely to be shot. You shouldn't worry about it at all. ncbi.nim.nih.gov. investigates the link between gun possession and gun assault.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> You'd be a better off without the gun. People who are victimized by criminals that have guns in their possession are 4.46 * more likely to be shot. You shouldn't worry about it at all. ncbi.nim.nih.gov. investigates the link between gun possession and gun assault.


There are much better things to talk about than this kind of garbage.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Bring it…..you fascist prick.


I'm sure his local FBI office circular files his notifications.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> You'd be a better off without the gun. People who are victimized by criminals that have guns in their possession are 4.46 * more likely to be shot. You shouldn't worry about it at all. ncbi.nim.nih.gov. investigates the link between gun possession and gun assault.




Wrong.......

Let's see a quote from your link........


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> I'm sure his local FBI office circular files his notifications.


I understand what you said, I haven't dealt with the local office in Omaha for years. I have given some good trips to the JTTF and have contacts and a special line are called just me directly to them. I also have the fax number


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wrong.......
> 
> Let's see a quote from your link........


I'm not doing your homework. Go to the site yourself.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> You'd be a better off without the gun. People who are victimized by criminals that have guns in their possession are 4.46 * more likely to be shot. You shouldn't worry about it at all. ncbi.nim.nih.gov. investigates the link between gun possession and gun assault.




Thanks... I looked up your study....here is an actual link...

What you  fail to point out........criminals shooting criminals are not normal people...but thanks for playing...

They don't tell you how many of the people are criminals.......that's kind of a big thing to know.....don't you think......

This is why we don't trust anti-gun fanatic researchers...they leave out the important details....to push their agenda...

*However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. **At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs,** outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).*









						Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
					

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> I'm not doing your homework. Go to the site yourself.




Yeah...the moderators might have something to say about that...but I did, in fact, do your work for you.......which is always a mistake for you anti-gun fascists...because we look at the actual studies, and find the things you want to hide...

However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, *and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. *At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> I'm not doing your homework. Go to the site yourself.



Yeah...there is a reason you didn't link to the study.......you don't want people to know that they tried to hide the fact that most of their "participants," were criminals and gang members...not normal citizens who carry guns to stop crime, not engage in it......

Thanks for playing


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Thanks... I looked up your study....here is an actual link...
> 
> What you  fail to point out........criminals shooting criminals are not normal people...but thanks for playing...
> 
> ...


I went back to that site. You are in error. It was like I said it was. Criminals generally are there for economic gain, they are not there to kill people or harm people. That is why every business urges their employees to not resist and give up the goods. If they attempt to steal from someone who then banishes a gun the one thing that is certain is somebody's going to get shot at.And it's logical to assume, the chances of it being either person is almost 100%. 
It's just common sense. And the conclusion part of that report said it is plain as day
 " On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. "


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yeah...there is a reason you didn't link to the study.......you don't want people to know that they tried to hide the fact that most of their "participants," were criminals and gang members...not normal citizens who carry guns to stop crime, not engage in it......
> 
> Thanks for playing


The reason I didn't list what you asked me to., Is because I already listed the link and if you wanted to investigate it further that was up to you. And you couldn't even do that right. Try to have a good night. LOL.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> I went back to that site. You are in error. It was like I said it was. Criminals generally are there for economic gain, they are not there to kill people or harm people. That is why every business urges their employees to not resist and give up the goods. If they attempt to steal from someone who then banishes a gun the one thing that is certain is somebody's going to get shot at.And it's logical to assume, the chances of it being either person is almost 100%.
> It's just common sense. And the conclusion part of that report said it is plain as day
> " On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. "




Wow...you do not understand gang bangers......or other humans.

The study only says "Assault."   They don't mention what the assault is because gang members shooting at each other ruins the propaganda aspects of the research....

 " On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. "

You can post that all day long.......I'll post this....

*However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. *

*At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs,** 
outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).*


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> The reason I didn't list what you asked me to., Is because I already listed the link and if you wanted to investigate it further that was up to you. And you couldn't even do that right. Try to have a good night. LOL.




Yeah.....run....fast.....before you get stomped again.....

Next time try going into your links with this understanding....

Gun control researchers lie.....they have to lie because the truth, facts and reality do not support what they want to find with their research.......


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wow...you do not understand gang bangers......or other humans.
> 
> The study only says "Assault."   They don't mention what the assault is because gang members shooting at each other ruins the propaganda aspects of the research....
> 
> ...


You do not understand the term assault at all. When a criminal shows up at a 7-Eleven with a gun and demands the employee give them all the money. That is an assault. When a criminal robs a bank with a gun, that is an assault. Assault definition, " intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact
 ( Physical injury is not required. )


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> You do not understand the term assault at all. When a criminal shows up at a 7-Eleven with a gun and demands the employee give them all the money. That is an assault. When a criminal robs a bank with a gun, that is an assault. Assault definition, " intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact
> ( Physical injury is not required. )




When gang members raid a drug house for the drugs and money...that is an assault....when a gang member sees a rival standing on a street corner selling drugs, drives by and shoots at him...that is an assault....when a gang banger sees a rival gang having a house party and they roll up and spray the party with bullets...that is an assault.....

This is what you fail to understand........the people they looked at, in particular, were criminals engaged in crime......not normal people who carry guns for self defense.........you idiot.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> When gang members raid a drug house for the drugs and money...that is an assault....when a gang member sees a rival standing on a street corner selling drugs, drives by and shoots at him...that is an assault....when a gang banger sees a rival gang having a house party and they roll up and spray the party with bullets...that is an assault.....
> 
> This is what you fail to understand........the people they looked at, in particular, were criminals engaged in crime......not normal people who carry guns for self defense.........you idiot.


I don't care about gangs, I live in a small town. I do not fear anything. Fear is for losers. Guns are for losers. That should about wrap it up. Good night.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> You do not understand the term assault at all. When a criminal shows up at a 7-Eleven with a gun and demands the employee give them all the money. That is an assault. When a criminal robs a bank with a gun, that is an assault. Assault definition, " intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact
> ( Physical injury is not required. )




You mean like this....robber shot by clerk......


Like this...clerk shoots, kills robber...


Hmmm...another clerk...


Hey...this one happened in Pennsylvania...where your study was done...


Hey...this clerk shoots the robber with the robbers own gun....


Do I have to keep posting these?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> I don't care about gangs, I live in a small town. I do not fear anything. Fear is for losers. Guns are for losers. That should about wrap it up. Good night.




Now....change the topic....since you can't defend the original topic.......


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You mean like this....robber shot by clerk......
> 
> 
> Like this...clerk shoots, kills robber...
> ...


You can do whatever you want. Keep posting these isolated incidents.  It doesn't change the fact, that in most cases, when criminals are confronted someone's going to get seriously hurt or dead. That's just common sense, something you seem to lack.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> You can do whatever you want. Keep posting these isolated incidents.  It doesn't change the fact, that in most cases, when criminals are confronted someone's going to get seriously hurt or dead. That's just common sense, something you seem to lack.


Home Oct 1, 2017 Guns do not stop more crimes evidence shows-Scientific American. I'm really done talking to you you don't want to learn. Hope you don't get yourself killed. Goodbye.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> You can do whatever you want. Keep posting these isolated incidents.  It doesn't change the fact, that in most cases, when criminals are confronted someone's going to get seriously hurt or dead. That's just common sense, something you seem to lack.



*It doesn't change the fact, that in most cases, when criminals are confronted someone's going to get seriously hurt or dead.*


Yeah...that is why we have legal guns....

Oh, and another thing about that dumb study you used....they only reported on shootings with injuries.........

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year for self defense......according to the Centers for Disease Control....1.5 million times a year if you use the study by the Department of Justice research...

in most of those attacks, once the victim shows their gun.....the criminal runs away, surrenders, or gets shot and injured....rarely do they get killed...really stupid criminals who push the attack in the face of a n armed victims are killed by the victims about 235 times a year.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Home Oct 1, 2017 Guns do not stop more crimes evidence shows-Scientific American. I'm really done talking to you you don't want to learn. Hope you don't get yourself killed. Goodbye.




You have an agenda.......I have facts.

And a word of advice...you really need to provide links to your sources.......when I first started posting years ago, I didn't know how to do it either...anyone here can help you.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> *It doesn't change the fact, that in most cases, when criminals are confronted someone's going to get seriously hurt or dead.*
> 
> 
> Yeah...that is why we have legal guns....
> ...


You failed to see the irony of your own statements. I wish you a good and safe Life, however improbable you make that possibility.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You have an agenda.......I have facts.
> 
> And a word of advice...you really need to provide links to your sources.......when I first started posting years ago, I didn't know how to do it either...anyone here can help you.


You people have had an agenda all along. America is finally waking up to your agenda, and they want no part of it.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> *It doesn't change the fact, that in most cases, when criminals are confronted someone's going to get seriously hurt or dead.*
> 
> 
> Yeah...that is why we have legal guns....
> ...


Earlier you said you had guns to protect your family. Although you're adamantly opposed to any site that discredits guns in any way. His first study might really help your family in ways you might not have thought of. Simply having guns in your house is putting you at risk in various ways. www.thetrace.org will a gun keep your family safe ? Here's what the evidence says. April 7th 2020. Another site may also help you and yours,                 https://www.hsph.harvardedu>news Do guns make us safer ?  Science says no / news.


----------



## Woodznutz (Jun 15, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> No one has the inherent right to tell someone else to not do drugs, no matter how stupid drugs may be.


Parents of minors do.

No one cares if you take drugs, Rigby.
Just don't give money to a crook for the drugs.
Don't harm someone while on drugs.
Don't rob and steal to get your drugs
Don't become a public nuisance because of your addiction.

No one has an inherent obligation to care for an addict or someone who overdoses on drugs. So just go off somewhere by yourself and take your drugs. We have enough problems without dealing with yours.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yeah.....run....fast.....before you get stomped again.....
> 
> Next time try going into your links with this understanding....
> 
> Gun control researchers lie.....they have to lie because the truth, facts and reality do not support what they want to find with their research.......


You actually think you're winning this argument. That's a good one, thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Stann (Jun 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You have an agenda.......I have facts.
> 
> And a word of advice...you really need to provide links to your sources.......when I first started posting years ago, I didn't know how to do it either...anyone here can help you.


I don't want to be bothered with all of this. I typed the links in, so if you're really interested you can get to them. That way it's on you, not me. I no longer start threads, I simply look in on them and make sure the conversation is balanced, if it is not then I jump in. There are way too many extremists on this site, and their opinions reflect that. I actually think the middle ground. I'm not in bed with either faction.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> Earlier you said you had guns to protect your family. Although you're adamantly opposed to any site that discredits guns in any way. His first study might really help your family in ways you might not have thought of. Simply having guns in your house is putting you at risk in various ways. www.thetrace.org will a gun keep your family safe ? Here's what the evidence says. April 7th 2020. Another site may also help you and yours,                 https://www.hsph.harvardedu>news Do guns make us safer ?  Science says no / news.



Oh good…more research done by anti-gun fanatics…..

I explained this to you…..

when you look at anti-gun research, you need to understand that truth, facts and reality do not support what they believe….so they lie………

The homes they study?  They fail to highlight the homes they study are abnormal…they have criminals, drug users, and alcoholics with long histories of police contact and domestic abuse……..they are not normal….

so sell that BS to Biden voters


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Stann said:


> You people have had an agenda all along. America is finally waking up to your agenda, and they want no part of it.



Yeah…no.,…what about AR-15 bans?

*a new Quinnipiac University poll showing public support for such a ban to be at an all-time low.*

*Support for a ban has fallen to 50 percent, while 45 percent oppose it, and according to the survey, “This is the lowest level of support among registered voters for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons since February 2013 when the question was first asked by the Quinnipiac University Poll.” Four years ago, 67 percent supported a ban and 29 percent opposed the idea.*









						Narrative Fail: Poll Finds Public Support For An 'Assault Weapons' Ban At An All-Time Low - The Truth About Guns
					

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ From the Second Amendment Foundation Amid the renewed clamor by anti-gunners for a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” the Second Amendment Foundation today pointed to a new Quinnipiac University poll showing public support for such a ban to be at an all-time low...




					www.thetruthaboutguns.com


----------



## Stann (Jun 16, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Oh good…more research done by anti-gun fanatics…..
> 
> I explained this to you…..
> 
> ...


Any good research is done in an unbiased manner. It doesn't matter if the researchers doing it are pro-gun or Anti-gun, they strive for the truth. The data, the statistics verify the results. You can't make a research study personal in any way.


----------



## Stann (Jun 16, 2022)

Stann said:


> Any good research is done in an unbiased manner. It doesn't matter if the researchers doing it are pro-gun or Anti-gun, they strive for the truth. The data, the statistics verify the results. You can't make a research study personal in any way.


Do you really want to be that ignorant. You said you were concerned about your family and their safety. I wouldn't just miss any information that might help me  just because of any prejudices that I might have.


----------



## Stann (Jun 16, 2022)

Stann said:


> Do you really want to be that ignorant. You said you were concerned about your family and their safety. I wouldn't just miss any information that might help me  just because of any prejudices that I might have.


When I looked up this information I did not say give me gun information that would indicate guns are counterproductive to the safety of my family. I simply asked the question. Does owning a gun make me and my family safer ? And almost every study that came up indicated that they did not. There were many. Only one which was the second one I listed, said it was basically 50/50 whether it helped or not. There are drawbacks with everything. If I owned a gun, I would want to know everything about them, the good and the bad, the pros and the cons, however you want to look at it. Physical life in this world is never easy. Few are fortunate to get by without much misfortune and injury is a constant possibility as well as death.


----------



## Stann (Jun 16, 2022)

Stann said:


> When I looked up this information I did not say give me gun information that would indicate guns are counterproductive to the safety of my family. I simply asked the question. Does owning a gun make me and my family safer ? And almost every study that came up indicated that they did not. There were many. Only one which was the second one I listed, said it was basically 50/50 whether it helped or not. There are drawbacks with everything. If I owned a gun, I would want to know everything about them, the good and the bad, the pros and the cons, however you want to look at it. Physical life in this world is never easy. Few are fortunate to get by without much misfortune and injury is a constant possibility as well as death.


Finally you keep mentioning gangs and criminals. Do you live in a high crime area ? Why not move somewhere safer. Like I said I live in a small town, I don't even lock my doors. Most of my neighbors do the same thing. We do not live in fear, we simply live.


----------



## Batcat (Jun 16, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Gun safety?  Uh, do what?  This ain't got jack-fucking-shit to do with "gun safety".  This is all about banning gun ownership.  Either an outright legislative prohibition, or by making it too expensive and/or too complicated to own a gun.  Anyone who says otherwise is either lying, or stupid.
> 
> New York is a perfect example: only the very rich and the very politically connected (one in the same?) can get a CCW permit in that state.
> 
> In California, it costs $450 to apply for a CCW permit and there's no guarantee that you'll actually get the permit.


In Florida Concealed Weapons Permits are much more reasonable in price. Florida may also soon go to Constitutional Carry. 



			The Captain's Journal » Florida permitless carry bill coming next legislative session, top Republican says
		










						Florida Concealed Carry [Updated: 6/29/2022]
					

Find answers to all of your Florida concealed carry and firearm law questions. How to get a Texas Concealed Weapon License and more.




					www.usacarry.com
				




_How much does a Florida Concealed Weapon License cost?
The initial fee for a Florida Concealed Weapon License for residents and non-residents is $102 which includes a $42 fingerprint processing fee and a $60 initial license fee.

Renewals for residents cost $50 and for non-residents is $92 which includes a $42 fingerprint processing fee.

The cost is $15 to obtain a revised or duplicate copy of your Florida Concealed Weapon License.

There is no $42 fingerprint processing fee for Active Florida Law Enforcement Officers. If you are a Florida Law Enforcement Officer that has retired within a year, there are no initial fees. If you have been retired for more than one year, the initial fee is $72 which includes a $40 fingerprint processing fee and a $30 initial license fee. Renewals for all retired Florida Law Enforcement Officers cost $30.

There are no charges whatsoever for active Judges.

The initial and renewal fees for a Consular Security Official are $300._


----------



## LuckyDuck (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> 1) Make it illegal for the NRA to donate to (bribe) politicians.
> 2) Gun manufacturers should be sued by the families of the victims who are killed by their guns. Run them out of business.
> 3) Ban AR-15s and any other semi-automatic weapons. These guns are made to slaughter human beings quickly and efficiently. That's all they are good for.
> 4) Repeal the 2nd Amendment. This will take time, but it's a goal.


1.  Make it illegal for companies that sell items like:  Knives, Hammers, Cars, Trucks, Baseball Bats, Boots, Screwdrivers and any other items that have been used to kill people with, to donate to politicians. 
2.  Sue those same companies listed above when someone kills another person(s) with those items.
3.  As more than five times as many people are murdered with knives than rifles, ban the sale of all knives.
4.  Deport all pro-Marxists as they want only a one-party government.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 16, 2022)

LuckyDuck said:


> 1.  Make it illegal for companies that sell items like:  Knives, Hammers, Cars, Trucks, Baseball Bats, Boots, Screwdrivers and any other items that have been used to kill people with, to donate to politicians.
> 2.  Sue those same companies listed above when someone kills another person(s) with those items.
> 3.  As more than five times as many people are murdered with knives than rifles, ban the sale of all knives.
> 4.  Deport all pro-Marxists as they want only a one-party government.


Translation: "I don't have anything intelligent to say. But, I had to say something".


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 16, 2022)

Stann said:


> Any good research is done in an unbiased manner. It doesn't matter if the researchers doing it are pro-gun or Anti-gun, they strive for the truth. The data, the statistics verify the results. You can't make a research study personal in any way.




No....anti-gun fanatics do research with the intent of pushing gun control.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 16, 2022)

Stann said:


> When I looked up this information I did not say give me gun information that would indicate guns are counterproductive to the safety of my family. I simply asked the question. Does owning a gun make me and my family safer ? And almost every study that came up indicated that they did not. There were many. Only one which was the second one I listed, said it was basically 50/50 whether it helped or not. There are drawbacks with everything. If I owned a gun, I would want to know everything about them, the good and the bad, the pros and the cons, however you want to look at it. Physical life in this world is never easy. Few are fortunate to get by without much misfortune and injury is a constant possibility as well as death.




What was the pool of gun owners used for the research?  Typically, the anti-gunners who focus on guns in the home use the homes with criminals, drug addicts and alcoholics as well as people with histories of domestic violence....they then say this is their representative examples of gun owners.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 16, 2022)

Stann said:


> When I looked up this information I did not say give me gun information that would indicate guns are counterproductive to the safety of my family. I simply asked the question. Does owning a gun make me and my family safer ? And almost every study that came up indicated that they did not. There were many. Only one which was the second one I listed, said it was basically 50/50 whether it helped or not. There are drawbacks with everything. If I owned a gun, I would want to know everything about them, the good and the bad, the pros and the cons, however you want to look at it. Physical life in this world is never easy. Few are fortunate to get by without much misfortune and injury is a constant possibility as well as death.




I showed you how the study you pointed out on carrying a gun making you more likely to be a victim of gun violence......and they used criminals in high crime areas as their representative sample...

You have learned nothing...

The first study you linked to.......and how they skewed their results...

*However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. 

At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, 

outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. 

Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).*



http://[URL='https://www.ncbi.nlm.n...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/[/URL]

This was the first study you tried to use to push your anti-gun agenda............

What makes you think the other studies by rabid anti-gunners will be any different in their techniques?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 16, 2022)

Stann said:


> When I looked up this information I did not say give me gun information that would indicate guns are counterproductive to the safety of my family. I simply asked the question. Does owning a gun make me and my family safer ? And almost every study that came up indicated that they did not. There were many. Only one which was the second one I listed, said it was basically 50/50 whether it helped or not. There are drawbacks with everything. If I owned a gun, I would want to know everything about them, the good and the bad, the pros and the cons, however you want to look at it. Physical life in this world is never easy. Few are fortunate to get by without much misfortune and injury is a constant possibility as well as death.




I put in "Does owning a gun make you safer...."

The first links are to anti-gun B.S..........from the Trace....which cites studies by david hemenway, and arthur kellerman....two rabid anti-gun fanatics...

So again.....you haven't learned anything....

Here is Kellerman and his shoddy, biased work...

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likelyto be killed by your own gun  myth, was forced to retract his original  study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25 The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors. A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range. After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership. Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon.Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

*Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.*


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

*Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----
*

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming* "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 *

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

*He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example, 

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. 
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.*

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

*Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.*

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

*It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.*

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 16, 2022)

Stann said:


> When I looked up this information I did not say give me gun information that would indicate guns are counterproductive to the safety of my family. I simply asked the question. Does owning a gun make me and my family safer ? And almost every study that came up indicated that they did not. There were many. Only one which was the second one I listed, said it was basically 50/50 whether it helped or not. There are drawbacks with everything. If I owned a gun, I would want to know everything about them, the good and the bad, the pros and the cons, however you want to look at it. Physical life in this world is never easy. Few are fortunate to get by without much misfortune and injury is a constant possibility as well as death.




Another look at Kellerman who was cited in the first link that came up....

*As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home.*



			https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
		



These are the "normal" gun owners that they use to show that owning a gun is more dangerous for the gun owner......


----------



## Stann (Jun 16, 2022)

LuckyDuck said:


> 1.  Make it illegal for companies that sell items like:  Knives, Hammers, Cars, Trucks, Baseball Bats, Boots, Screwdrivers and any other items that have been used to kill people with, to donate to politicians.
> 2.  Sue those same companies listed above when someone kills another person(s) with those items.
> 3.  As more than five times as many people are murdered with knives than rifles, ban the sale of all knives.
> 4.  Deport all pro-Marxists as they want only a one-party government.


The guy you responded to had it right. The proliferation of guns has to be reduced, a ban on further production would be great, then you can get to the rest of them without them being replenished.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 16, 2022)

Stann said:


> The guy you responded to had it right. The proliferation of guns has to be reduced, a ban on further production would be great, then you can get to the rest of them without them being replenished.



yes…you are a fascist….after you get the guns when do you start digging the mass graves?


----------



## Stann (Jun 16, 2022)

2aguy said:


> yes…you are a fascist….after you get the guns when do you start digging the mass graves?


The odds strongly favor you getting shot before I will ever get shot. You frightened little weasel.


----------



## Stann (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> The odds strongly favor you getting shot before I will ever get shot. You frightened little weasel.


You keep condemning my studies, say they're from a liberal point of view. Well that's just not true they're from a scientific point of view. Facts really matter in this world. Time.com.ideas.guns June 3rd, 2022 316 p.m. EDT owning gun supports people in your home at greater risk of being killed/new study shows


----------



## Stann (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> You keep condemning my studies, say they're from a liberal point of view. Well that's just not true they're from a scientific point of view. Facts really matter in this world. Time.com.ideas.guns June 3rd, 2022 316 p.m. EDT owning gun supports people in your home at greater risk of being killed/new study shows


I bet you didn't know that 84% of the murders in homes are women.


----------



## Stann (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> I bet you didn't know that 84% of the murders in homes are women.


The last murder in my town here in Nebraska was in 1983. I like my odds here. I didn't work today, but I helped my neighbor tear down his old barn. He agreed if I helped him he'd give me all the weathered boards. I'm going to clean them up and put them on one of the walls in my living room. That's the kind of things I work on, on my days off, besides gardening I have a super garden.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> You keep condemning my studies, say they're from a liberal point of view. Well that's just not true they're from a scientific point of view. Facts really matter in this world. Time.com.ideas.guns June 3rd, 2022 316 p.m. EDT owning gun supports people in your home at greater risk of being killed/new study shows




No.....I have pointed out the anti-gun fanaticism of both hemenway and kellerman....

Kellerman taught them how to make up those statistics using criminal, drug addicts, alcoholics and domestic abusers as their sample groups.......hemenway did it too....as I showed you with his study.


----------



## Stann (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No.....I have pointed out the anti-gun fanaticism of both hemenway and kellerman....
> 
> Kellerman taught them how to make up those statistics using criminal, drug addicts, alcoholics and domestic abusers as their sample groups.......hemenway did it too....as I showed you with his study.


I guess you can read anything you want into these studies whether it's true or not. Have a good day I'm done with you.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> I guess you can read anything you want into these studies whether it's true or not. Have a good day I'm done with you.




Not reading anything into the studies...I am showing you exactly how they used the choice of the most toxic, damaged groups to get the results they wanted.....


----------



## Stann (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Not reading anything into the studies...I am showing you exactly how they used the choice of the most toxic, damaged groups to get the results they wanted.....


They were families, fellow human beings and Americans, sorry they don't live up to your standards of what a family should be. You are the only one who is toxic around here. They didn't set out to pick anyone these are the statistics.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> They were families, fellow human beings and Americans, sorry they don't live up to your standards of what a family should be. You are the only one who is toxic around here. They didn't set out to pick anyone these are the statistics.




No...not even close...when you are doing a study on gun ownership being dangerous...but you focus your study on criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics and domestic abusers...while ignoring all the normal gun owners, it simply shows you have a goal, and your study is intent on reaching that goal.


----------



## Stann (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...not even close...when you are doing a study on gun ownership being dangerous...but you focus your study on criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics and domestic abusers...while ignoring all the normal gun owners, it simply shows you have a goal, and your study is intent on reaching that goal.


I went to the NRA site, asked about what studies they've done and it turns out their data is very badly biased. They tried to say homes that had guns in them or safer than homes that did not have guns in them. That's the bottom line I'm trying to let you know. Every study on guns ( with the exception of studies done by gun lobby people ) demonstrates one simple truth.     " People living in homes with guns there's a substantially higher risk of being fatally assaulted. " No matter how you try to spin that, it doesn't work.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> I went to the NRA site, asked about what studies they've done and it turns out their data is very badly biased. They tried to say homes that had guns in them or safer than homes that did not have guns in them. That's the bottom line I'm trying to let you know. Every study on guns ( with the exception of studies done by gun lobby people ) demonstrates one simple truth.     " People living in homes with guns there's a substantially higher risk of being fatally assaulted. " No matter how you try to spin that, it doesn't work.




Nope......when you do a study and your focus group are violent criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts and domestic abusers, as the "norm," for gun owners, you have an anti-gun agenda......Kellerman and hemingway were both called out on this.......


----------



## Stann (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nope......when you do a study and your focus group are violent criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts and domestic abusers, as the "norm," for gun owners, you have an anti-gun agenda......Kellerman and hemingway were both called out on this.......


Called out by whom ?, the NRA ?, That's a joke, and not a good one.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> They tried to say homes that had guns in them or safer than homes that did not have guns in them.


That’s clearly a lie.

And the fact that homes with guns are less safe isn’t being used as ‘justification’ for firearm regulation – that’s also a lie.

Conservatives need to stop with the lies and slippery slope fallacies – guns aren’t going to be ‘banned,’ guns aren’t going to be ‘confiscated.’


----------



## Stann (Jun 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That’s clearly a lie.
> 
> And the fact that homes with guns are less safe isn’t being used as ‘justification’ for firearm regulation – that’s also a lie.
> 
> Conservatives need to stop with the lies and slippery slope fallacies – guns aren’t going to be ‘banned,’ guns aren’t going to be ‘confiscated.’


Bottom line is the truth has to make a difference.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> Called out by whom ?, the NRA ?, That's a joke, and not a good one.



By other researchers.....especially Kellerman....as my linked articles on him showed....which is why he went back and did his study over...the first study he said you were 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun in your home.....other researchers called him out for his shoddy work, he did the study over and came out with 2.7 times more likely.....and yet he still used the worst cases for his focus group...

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

*After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;*

------------


In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population. For example, 53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability. In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

*All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5 It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.*

*Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6*

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

*This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.*

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study.


 Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6





__





						Public Health and Gun Control: A Review
					





					www.aapsonline.org
				





*Also....*

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25


The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors.

A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range.

 After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership.


*Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon.*


Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care.

Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> The guy you responded to had it right. The proliferation of guns has to be reduced, a ban on further production would be great, then you can get to the rest of them without them being replenished.


That’s not going to happen – nor should it.

‘Bans’ don’t work, whether it’s abortion, alcohol, or guns.

There are no quick or easy answers; these are complex issues that require comprehensive solutions.


----------



## Stann (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> By other researchers.....especially Kellerman....as my linked articles on him showed....which is why he went back and did his study over...the first study he said you were 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun in your home.....other researchers called him out for his shoddy work, he did the study over and came out with 2.7 times more likely.....and yet he still used the worst cases for his focus group...
> 
> Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.
> 
> ...


Even when they were called out for exaggerated data as you suggest. The researchers that questioned that data still confirmed that it is more deadly to have weapons in the home than to not. Which proves what I've been saying all along.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> Even when they were called out for exaggerated data as you suggest. The researchers that questioned that data still confirmed that it is more deadly to have weapons in the home than to not. Which proves what I've been saying all along.




Yeah....his study was a sham........and you think he should be trusted after that?



Here.....18 studies that show Americans use their legal guns for self defense......

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)


2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and  Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million  averaged over  those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*2021 national firearms survey..*

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> Even when they were called out for exaggerated data as you suggest. The researchers that questioned that data still confirmed that it is more deadly to have weapons in the home than to not. Which proves what I've been saying all along.




Yeah....if you are a criminal, with impulse control issues....if you are a drug addict, or drug dealer....if you are an alcoholic, or someone who is into domestic abuse....you are more likely to be hurt by a gun.....

Normal gun owners...not so much....


----------



## Stann (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yeah....his study was a sham........and you think he should be trusted after that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So far you've beaten the odds. I hope the day never comes for you, when you or your wife or your children or your grandchildren are accidentally shot with one of those guns you own. The only good that will come out of that is you will finally realize guns were a mistake to begin with.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> So far you've beaten the odds. I hope the day never comes for you, when you or your wife or your children or your grandchildren are accidentally shot with one of those guns you own. The only good that will come out of that is you will finally realize guns were a mistake to begin with.




Tell that to any of the people in those 18 studies who used their legal guns to save lives....

Then this....the lives saved by legal guns and their owners...

600 million guns in private hands......over 21.25 million Americans can carry guns legally in public for self defense.........

American use those legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies, and murders, as well as also stopping mass public shootings when they are allowed to have their legal guns with them...

Of the gun murder deaths....over 70-80% of the victims are not regular Americans....they are criminals...murdered by other criminals in primarily democrat party controlled cities....where the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians have released them over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested for felony, illegal gun possession and violent crimes with guns...that's on you and your political party...not normal gun owners.








Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop brutal rapes, robberies, beatings, knifings, murders......according to the Centers for Disease Control, and 1.5 million times according to the Department of Justice.



Lives saved....based on research?  By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct





* that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—*



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......


*So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.*

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.


Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns


----------



## Stann (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Tell that to any of the people in those 18 studies who used their legal guns to save lives....
> 
> Then this....the lives saved by legal guns and their owners...
> 
> ...


Like I said, I have no fears in my life, I have no regrets, hope you can get to a place where you can say the same. Goodbye.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> Like I said, I have no fears in my life, I have no regrets, hope you can get to a place where you can say the same. Goodbye.



I am at that place.......you guys always use "fear," to describe gun owners......we have as much fear about walking around with our concealed carry gun, or with a gun in the home as we have when we buy a fire alarm for the house......


----------



## Stann (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I am at that place.......you guys always use "fear," to describe gun owners......we have as much fear about walking around with our concealed carry gun, or with a gun in the home as we have when we buy a fire alarm for the house......


Apples and oranges again. Fire alarms do not kill people.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Jun 18, 2022)

Stann said:


> The guy you responded to had it right. The proliferation of guns has to be reduced, a ban on further production would be great, then you can get to the rest of them without them being replenished.


We aren't giving them up.  I served a career in the military because of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights, which includes the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, et cetera.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives need to stop with the lies and slippery slope fallacies – guns aren’t going to be ‘banned,’ guns aren’t going to be ‘confiscated.’


I love irony.

Lying to us about what we KNOW your communist ilk plans, then telling us to stop lying.

 

LISTEN:  We do not trust you one fucking scintilla.  Get it?

YOU ARE NOT TRUSTWORTHY!!!

Get it?

So, when you say "guns aren’t going to be ‘banned,’ guns aren’t going to be ‘confiscated" we KNOW you are fucking lying.

Why?

Because you and your commie ilk tried to have the SCOTUS deem our right collective only.  We have the _Heller _decision, thanks to you buttfuckers.

YOU ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED!!!!

So, you flap your lips till the cows come home.  We do not believe a goddamn word out of your filthy sewer, because YOU proved yourselves to be snakes.

So fuck off.  You are trying to ban and confiscate.  We are not going to "compromise" a goddamn thing. I don't care how many people die.  

NOT

ONE

FUCKING

INCH

In fact, if anything, we are pushing to repeal ever goddamn gun law on earth, and we are willing to die for it.  You?


----------



## Stann (Jun 18, 2022)

LuckyDuck said:


> We aren't giving them up.  I served a career in the military because of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights, which includes the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, et cetera.


I'm not talking about hunting guns just these crazy new military guns that the civilians should never have had in the first place. The ones designed for killing  dozens of people in minutes.


----------



## Stann (Jun 19, 2022)

Stann said:


> I'm not talking about hunting guns just these crazy new military guns that the civilians should never have had in the first place. The ones designed for killing  dozens of people in minutes.


I hope that 50 caliber m107 super rifle is never available to civilians. That's a game changer, and absolute weapon of incredible destructive power that should only be allowed in the military. Also 223/5.56 rounds, . 308-7.62 * 39 mm. And 300 blackout should all be banned from civilians as well as the armor piercing bullets it is only one reason someone will want those and it's not a good reason.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 19, 2022)

Stann said:


> I hope that 50 caliber m107 super rifle is never available to civilians. That's a game changer, and absolute weapon of incredible destructive power that should only be allowed in the military. Also *223/5.56 rounds, . 308-7.62 * 39 mm. And 300 blackout* should all be banned from civilians as well as the armor piercing bullets it is only one reason someone will want those and it's not a good reason.



  Do you understand that those three rounds are intermediate-power rounds?  Any round suitable for deer-hunting would be considerably more powerful than any of them.


----------



## Stann (Jun 19, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Do you understand that those three rounds are intermediate-power rounds?  Any round suitable for deer-hunting would be considerably more powerful than any of them.


Those were listed as the most explosive on impact, producing more Carnage. That is why they were isolated out.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 19, 2022)

Stann said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Do you understand that those three rounds are intermediate-power rounds?  Any round suitable for deer-hunting would be considerably more powerful than any of them.
> ...



  What source _“listed”_ them as such?  Surely a source that is as ignorant about such things as you very obviously are.

  And decent deer-hunting round would do a lot more damage to a human, than any of those three rounds would.


----------



## Stann (Jun 19, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> What source _“listed”_ them as such?  Surely a source that is as ignorant about such things as you very obviously are.
> 
> And decent deer-hunting round would do a lot more damage to a human, than any of those three rounds would.


I don't keep these articles, it was in the article that listed that that new gun that new rifle shouldn't be available to civilians because it's so lethal. You're amazed people own machine guns and drive around and tanks. That would be just as insane. I may not know much, well I know none of that would be good for anyone.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> I don't keep these articles, it was in the article that listed that that new gun that new rifle shouldn't be available to civilians because it's so lethal. You're amazed people own machine guns and drive around and tanks. That would be just as insane. I may not know much, well I know none of that would be good for anyone.



  In other words, you're just making up bullshit, without any source.

  In other words, lying.

  There was no article, which is why you cannot now cite it.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> I don't keep these articles, it was in the article that listed that that new gun that new rifle shouldn't be available to civilians because it's so lethal. You're amazed people own machine guns and drive around and tanks. That would be just as insane. I may not know much, well I know none of that would be good for anyone.


An average deer rifle does twice to 3x the damage of a .223/5.56 or a 7.62x39.

300 Blackout is a subsonic round, so it does less damage than any of those and probably less than a 9mm. 



> 308-7.62 * 39 mm


 

.308 = 7.62 x 51 not x 39 (which is the AK47 round)









7.62x39







you're uninformed.


----------



## Stann (Jun 20, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> In other words, you're just making up bullshit, without any source.
> 
> In other words, lying.
> 
> There was no article, which is why you cannot now cite it.


No I'm not really into all this garbage like you people are. It is a sickness, I don't want to get into it that much. It is all a part of our barbaric past that needs to die out for mankind to advance to the next level.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Jun 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> I'm not talking about hunting guns just these crazy new military guns that the civilians should never have had in the first place. The ones designed for killing  dozens of people in minutes.


Newsflash the AR-15 style rifles are NOT military firearms.  A military rifle in use by the United States is the M16.  It can be switched from semi-automatic to fire in short bursts.  The AR-15 rifles cannot do this.  They remain semi-automatic rifles firing one shot each time the trigger is pulled.  Law-abiding owners of these "civilian rifles," do use these rifles for hunting and they have been used successfully against home-invasions done by multiple individuals at once.  
The ignorant layperson needs to understand why the Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment, and it wasn't for hunting.  They saw the value of private citizens forming militias to defend their states, which aided in our winning the war against the strongest military in the 1700's.
Thus, they said that the right of the people to "keep and bear arms" was paramount to aiding in the defense of their states from a tyrannical government, whether tyrannical government is foreign or domestic.
The current feeble-minded president said that the civilian couldn't win a war against our government, as the government has rockets, missiles, tanks, artillery, fighter jets and bombers, if the government were to go up against the populace, apparently he is unaware that we were involved in a war for 20 years against a determined population armed only with AK-47's, AK-74's, RPG's and Improvised Explosive Devices, while dressed in the equivalent of pajamas, sandals and cloth headwear......and...... they won.  They just wore the US military with all of its fancy military might, down.


----------



## Stann (Jun 20, 2022)

LuckyDuck said:


> Newsflash the AR-15 style rifles are NOT military firearms.  A military rifle in use by the United States is the M16.  It can be switched from semi-automatic to fire in short bursts.  The AR-15 rifles cannot do this.  They remain semi-automatic rifles firing one shot each time the trigger is pulled.  Law-abiding owners of these "civilian rifles," do use these rifles for hunting and they have been used successfully against home-invasions done by multiple individuals at once.
> The ignorant layperson needs to understand why the Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment, and it wasn't for hunting.  They saw the value of private citizens forming militias to defend their states, which aided in our winning the war against the strongest military in the 1700's.
> Thus, they said that the right of the people to "keep and bear arms" was paramount to aiding in the defense of their states from a tyrannical government, whether tyrannical government is foreign or domestic.
> The current feeble-minded president said that the civilian couldn't win a war against our government, as the government has rockets, missiles, tanks, artillery, fighter jets and bombers, if the government were to go up against the populace, apparently he is unaware that we were involved in a war for 20 years against a determined population armed only with AK-47's, AK-74's, RPG's and Improvised Explosive Devices, while dressed in the equivalent of pajamas, sandals and cloth headwear......and...... they won.  They just wore the US military with all of its fancy military might, down.


Whatever, if the founding fathers were alive today and they could see what is going on in this country, they were disarm all American citizens. They did it before when there was only a threat of violence. They would definitely do it when there's such a great problem with it.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> Whatever, if the founding fathers were alive today and they could see what is going on in this country, they were disarm all American citizens. They did it before when there was only a threat of violence. They would definitely do it when there's such a great problem with it.



  You most certainly do not speak for any of the great men who founded this country or wrote our Constitution.  Any of them would surely consider you an embarrassment to this nation.


----------



## Stann (Jun 20, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You most certainly do not speak for any of the great men who founded this country or wrote our Constitution.  Any of them would surely consider you an embarrassment to this nation.


Which shows how little you know about our history. And the second amendment.. it's amazing how much ignorance and arrogance there is surrounding it.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> I'm not talking about hunting guns just these crazy new military guns that the civilians should never have had in the first place. The ones designed for killing  dozens of people in minutes.




New?   Semi-automatic rifles go back at least to 1907 when winchester created a magazine fed semi-automatic rifle....the AR-15 is no different, in way, from that rifle.....

Can you answer this question...show us your chops......is the AR-15 a military weapon?

Yes or no.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> Whatever, if the founding fathers were alive today and they could see what is going on in this country, they were disarm all American citizens. They did it before when there was only a threat of violence. They would definitely do it when there's such a great problem with it.




No...dipshit.....if the Founding Fathers saw the way the Europeans disarmed their citizens in the 1920s, and they, by 1935 began the process of murdering 15 million innocent men, women and children, they would have declared, in the Bill of Rights, that all homes have two or more actual military rifles with several hundred rounds of ammunition....to start..........

Then, seeing the close to 200 million people murdered by the socialists around the world, they would have doubled both....


----------



## Stann (Jun 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> New?   Semi-automatic rifles go back at least to 1907 when winchester created a magazine fed semi-automatic rifle....the AR-15 is no different, in way, from that rifle.....
> 
> Can you answer this question...show us your chops......is the AR-15 a military weapon?
> 
> Yes or no.


The ArmaLite ( AR-15 ) was designed in 1956 for the military. Source Wikipedia.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> The ArmaLite ( AR-15 ) was designed in 1956 for the military. Source Wikipedia.




Wrong...dipshit.......the original patent...


When it is first sold to civilians....it is a civilian rifle...it was on the Civilian market for two years....before the military changed its design...


*The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”*

*“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. 


“The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”*




Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians


----------



## Stann (Jun 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wrong...dipshit.......the original patent...
> 
> 
> When it is first sold to civilians....it is a civilian rifle...it was on the Civilian market for two years....before the military changed its design...
> ...


What part of assault rifle do you not understand. The intent of the manufacturer was to sell it to the military.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> What part of assault rifle do you not understand. The intent of the manufacturer was to sell it to the military.




I understand it...you don't....."Assault Rifle," to start with is a made up term...made up by anti-gunners for the scare factor....which has obviously worked on your tiny brain.....

It doesn't matter what the intent was since it was first sold to civilians....lots of technology created for civilians is then taken up and adapted by the military.......the civilian market responds to the market.....the military has to deal with government bureaucrats so what they develop is usually crap....

Again....

*“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. 

It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (*


----------



## Stann (Jun 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wrong...dipshit.......the original patent...
> 
> 
> When it is first sold to civilians....it is a civilian rifle...it was on the Civilian market for two years....before the military changed its design...
> ...


Michael Fanone, and strong gun advocate, AR-15 owner with two decades on the Washington metropolitan police department had this to say about the AR-15, " and one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn't belong in the hands of the average civilian. " Anyone who owns or wants to own one of these weapons should go through stringent background checks and pass a gun safety course. That's very apparent, since the craziest of The crazies is drawn to this weapon.


----------



## Stann (Jun 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I understand it...you don't....."Assault Rifle," to start with is a made up term...made up by anti-gunners for the scare factor....which has obviously worked on your tiny brain.....
> 
> It doesn't matter what the intent was since it was first sold to civilians....lots of technology created for civilians is then taken up and adapted by the military.......the civilian market responds to the market.....the military has to deal with government bureaucrats so what they develop is usually crap....
> 
> ...


LOL, keep believing all that s***, it still won't make it true.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> Michael Fanone, and strong gun advocate, AR-15 owner with two decades on the Washington metropolitan police department had this to say about the AR-15, " and one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn't belong in the hands of the average civilian. " Anyone who owns or wants to own one of these weapons should go through stringent background checks and pass a gun safety course. That's very apparent, since the craziest of The crazies is drawn to this weapon.




He is an idiot...they have been in the hands of civilians since 1963...you idiot........they are in no way different from any other semi-automatic rifle........

I have actual experts who say the AR-15 is the best tool for home defense, you dope.....


Here....you dope....a real firearms expert and expert witness....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> LOL, keep believing all that s***, it still won't make it true.




You are the one in the fantasy world.....with that pea sized brain...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> LOL, keep believing all that s***, it still won't make it true.




Learn something...

**


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> LOL, keep believing all that s***, it still won't make it true.




I give you an actual firearm expert......a man who is an expert witness at criminal cases in self defense.......a master shooter, and firearms instructor....with decades and decades of experience....

You can't handle that .......so you post that......


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> Michael Fanone, and strong gun advocate, AR-15 owner with two decades on the Washington metropolitan police department had this to say about the AR-15, " and one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn't belong in the hands of the average civilian. " Anyone who owns or wants to own one of these weapons should go through stringent background checks and pass a gun safety course. That's very apparent, since the craziest of The crazies is drawn to this weapon.


OK I'll just buy a Mini 14

It shoots the exact same round as an AR 15  at the same rate of one round per trigger pull


----------



## Stann (Jun 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He is an idiot...they have been in the hands of civilians since 1963...you idiot........they are in no way different from any other semi-automatic rifle........
> 
> I have actual experts who say the AR-15 is the best tool for home defense, you dope.....
> 
> ...


I would say you're the idiot. End of story, end of our conversation. Try to have a good day, I plan on it.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jun 20, 2022)

Here is the leadership of the gun safety movement:









						NRA Explore
					

The NRA offers resources and training to ensure the safe and effective use of firearms as well as personal safety. Training courses are available that teach proactive strategies to avoid dangerous situations, self-defense using a firearm, as well as protection inside and outside the home.




					explore.nra.org
				




They are doing well with that.  

I'm trying to remember any stories of students or intruders shooting up an NRA gun safety class.  None come to mind.  It seems that it is the public schools, which rarely feature gun safety classes, that drives mentally unstable people to that kind of violent extremism.


----------

