# Dear NRA, There Is A Scientific Consensus On Guns And Safety. And You Won't Like It.



## Dante

There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry 



_So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
​*Let the denial begin...*


----------



## Correll

How do you feel about the IQ gap?

Pro-science or anti?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

What the hell does any of that have to do with the 2nd amendment?


----------



## Porker

*Dear NRA, There Is A Scientific Consensus On Guns And Safety. And You Won't Like It.*
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.


----------



## Derideo_Te

a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that 

*a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that 

*guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to 

*more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%). 

Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).

Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.



*a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
*
How does the gun do that?

*There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)*


A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?
*
Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
*
What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?


----------



## RodISHI

Derideo_Te said:


> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.


Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.


----------



## Porker

I repeat...



Porker said:


> *Dear NRA, There Is A Scientific Consensus On Guns And Safety. And You Won't Like It.*
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Dante said:


> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*



You mean *"SCI-YEN-TERRIFIC!" *consensus after the Ice Age/Global Warming/Ice Age consensus model.

Got it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> *
> How does the gun do that?
> 
> *There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)*
> 
> 
> A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
> How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?
> *
> Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
> *
> What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
> Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?
Click to expand...


Ask an adult to explain the premise of the OP to you in terms you might be able to understand, 'mkay?


----------



## Derideo_Te

RodISHI said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
Click to expand...


Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> *
> How does the gun do that?
> 
> *There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)*
> 
> 
> A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
> How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?
> *
> Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
> *
> What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
> Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask an adult to explain the premise of the OP to you in terms you might be able to understand, 'mkay?
Click to expand...


If you see an adult on this thread, send them over. Then we can both laugh at you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
Click to expand...


The point is, the feelings of the polled don't equal facts.


----------



## RodISHI

Derideo_Te said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
Click to expand...

More like someone tired of hearing all the bullshit propaganda that goes on about actually having or possessing a gun for self defense against intruders.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> *
> How does the gun do that?
> 
> *There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)*
> 
> 
> A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
> How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?
> *
> Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
> *
> What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
> Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask an adult to explain the premise of the OP to you in terms you might be able to understand, 'mkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you see an adult on this thread, send them over. Then we can both laugh at you.
Click to expand...


If his gun handling is like his posts....DT knows he'd shoot himself at some point (accidently, of course).


----------



## chikenwing

Dante said:


> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*


Would it be anything like the Harvard scientific study,published several years ago,that the left just ignores ones like that?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Scientists? Aren't those the same people who came up with evolution? Aren't they the ones that claim that increasing greenhouse gasses by millions of tons every year causes climate change? And now, they are claiming that guns are dangerous to your family and loved ones? If any of that were true, wouldn't it be in the Bible?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, the feelings of the polled don't equal facts.
Click to expand...


They are a tally of the current consensus of scientists on the pertinent issues that gun fetishists like you and your ilk constantly lie about.


----------



## Derideo_Te

RodISHI said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like someone tired of hearing all the bullshit propaganda that goes on about actually having or possessing a gun for self defense against intruders.
Click to expand...


7 out of 10 scientists don't accept the BS propaganda that is constantly being spewed by the gun fetishists.


----------



## RodISHI

Derideo_Te said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like someone tired of hearing all the bullshit propaganda that goes on about actually having or possessing a gun for self defense against intruders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7 out of 10 scientists don't accept the BS propaganda that is constantly being spewed by the gun fetishists.
Click to expand...

Their needs for guns are probably nil in the labs.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

chikenwing said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be anything like the Harvard scientific study,published several years ago,that the left just ignores ones like that?
Click to expand...


From the sounds of things....it's not even that good (or should I say it's even worse).

The Harvard study on health insurance was a load.


----------



## Derideo_Te

RodISHI said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like someone tired of hearing all the bullshit propaganda that goes on about actually having or possessing a gun for self defense against intruders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7 out of 10 scientists don't accept the BS propaganda that is constantly being spewed by the gun fetishists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their needs for guns are probably nil in the labs.
Click to expand...


If you read the OP all of these scientists are involved with firearms in one form of another.

My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Most of the scientists who were publishing relevant articles were from the fields of criminology, economics, public policy, political science and public health.​
Trying to dismiss them is a typical tactic of those who cannot handle the facts.


----------



## RodISHI

Derideo_Te said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like someone tired of hearing all the bullshit propaganda that goes on about actually having or possessing a gun for self defense against intruders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7 out of 10 scientists don't accept the BS propaganda that is constantly being spewed by the gun fetishists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their needs for guns are probably nil in the labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the OP all of these scientists are involved with firearms in one form of another.
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Most of the scientists who were publishing relevant articles were from the fields of criminology, economics, public policy, political science and public health.​
> Trying to dismiss them is a typical tactic of those who cannot handle the facts.
Click to expand...

I dismiss anything that goes against the liberty granted to the people of this great nation as intended by the original founders of our government. I already stated from personal experience a gun saved me from a rapist. I will never agree with anyone trying to take the guns out of the hands of legal gun owners in this country. If you want to live in a supposedly limited gun rights country head for Europe and depend upon a police state to defend you from a home or bedroom intruder.


----------



## Derideo_Te

RodISHI said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> 
> 
> More like someone tired of hearing all the bullshit propaganda that goes on about actually having or possessing a gun for self defense against intruders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7 out of 10 scientists don't accept the BS propaganda that is constantly being spewed by the gun fetishists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their needs for guns are probably nil in the labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the OP all of these scientists are involved with firearms in one form of another.
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Most of the scientists who were publishing relevant articles were from the fields of criminology, economics, public policy, political science and public health.​
> Trying to dismiss them is a typical tactic of those who cannot handle the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dismiss anything that goes against the liberty granted to the people of this great nation as intended by the original founders of our government. I already stated from personal experience a gun saved me from a rapist. I will never agree with anyone trying to take the guns out of the hands of legal gun owners in this country. If you want to live in a supposedly limited gun rights country head for Europe and depend upon a police state to defend you from a home or bedroom intruder.
Click to expand...


There is nothing whatsoever in the the OP that even vaguely resembles your paranoia.

But thanks for proving that the paranoia of gun fetishism is so rampant as to override every single attempt at rational discussion and debate.


----------



## RodISHI

Derideo_Te said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> More like someone tired of hearing all the bullshit propaganda that goes on about actually having or possessing a gun for self defense against intruders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7 out of 10 scientists don't accept the BS propaganda that is constantly being spewed by the gun fetishists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their needs for guns are probably nil in the labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the OP all of these scientists are involved with firearms in one form of another.
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Most of the scientists who were publishing relevant articles were from the fields of criminology, economics, public policy, political science and public health.​
> Trying to dismiss them is a typical tactic of those who cannot handle the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dismiss anything that goes against the liberty granted to the people of this great nation as intended by the original founders of our government. I already stated from personal experience a gun saved me from a rapist. I will never agree with anyone trying to take the guns out of the hands of legal gun owners in this country. If you want to live in a supposedly limited gun rights country head for Europe and depend upon a police state to defend you from a home or bedroom intruder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing whatsoever in the the OP that even vaguely resembles your paranoia.
> 
> But thanks for proving that the paranoia of gun fetishism is so rampant as to override every single attempt at rational discussion and debate.
Click to expand...

I don't own a gun haven't in over twenty years. There were though several times when I was younger I was very grateful that I did have one nearby or on my person when young men thought they may like to take what they wanted against my will.


----------



## Freiheit

Since when does a consensus of opinion mean anything more than yes that is my opinion?  Opinions are like assholes everyone has one and they all stink.
If a politicians lips are moving he/she is lying.


----------



## martybegan

Freiheit said:


> Since when does a consensus of opinion mean anything more than yes that is my opinion?  Opinions are like assholes everyone has one and they all stink.
> If a politicians lips are moving he/she is lying.



A majority of progressives appeal to authority for their views, it allows them to have a position without having to think about it. They parrot the lines of the few that can actually think for themselves.  (Yes some of them actually exist).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, the feelings of the polled don't equal facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are a tally of the current consensus of scientists on the pertinent issues that gun fetishists like you and your ilk constantly lie about.
Click to expand...


A consensus on whether strong gun laws reduce homicide?
Why not just show the proof? You know, instead of asking for their opinions?
You know, the proof that you and your ilk constantly lie about.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Derideo_Te said:


> But thanks for proving that the paranoia of gun fetishism is so rampant as to override every single attempt at rational discussion and debate.



What has not already been said ad infinitum?

Look at gun control 25 years ago, and look now.  You people have clearly lost your 20th Century attempt to subvert this Constitutional right.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Freiheit said:


> Since when does a consensus of opinion mean anything more than yes that is my opinion?  Opinions are like assholes everyone has one and they all stink.
> If a politicians lips are moving he/she is lying.


*
Since when does a consensus of opinion mean anything more than yes that is my opinion?
*
No kidding. If we wanted to know how liberal idiots feel about guns, we could just ask here.

And their feelings would be just as pointless as those in this moronic, unscientific poll.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, the feelings of the polled don't equal facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are a tally of the current consensus of scientists on the pertinent issues that gun fetishists like you and your ilk constantly lie about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A consensus on whether strong gun laws reduce homicide?
> Why not just show the proof? You know, instead of asking for their opinions?
> You know, the proof that you and your ilk constantly lie about.
Click to expand...


Try reading the OP.

These are scientists who study this topic so they already know the data on which they are basing their professional positions.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> But thanks for proving that the paranoia of gun fetishism is so rampant as to override every single attempt at rational discussion and debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has not already been said ad infinitum?
> 
> Look at gun control 25 years ago, and look now.  You people have clearly lost your 20th Century attempt to subvert this Constitutional right.
Click to expand...


Yet another dullard who doesn't understand the OP topic.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Derideo_Te said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> But thanks for proving that the paranoia of gun fetishism is so rampant as to override every single attempt at rational discussion and debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has not already been said ad infinitum?
> 
> Look at gun control 25 years ago, and look now.  You people have clearly lost your 20th Century attempt to subvert this Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another dullard who doesn't understand the OP topic.
Click to expand...


I understand the topic just fine, and gave it all the attention it deserved.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> But thanks for proving that the paranoia of gun fetishism is so rampant as to override every single attempt at rational discussion and debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has not already been said ad infinitum?
> 
> Look at gun control 25 years ago, and look now.  You people have clearly lost your 20th Century attempt to subvert this Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another dullard who doesn't understand the OP topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand the topic just fine, and gave it all the attention it deserved.
Click to expand...


Your posts prove otherwise.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Derideo_Te said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> But thanks for proving that the paranoia of gun fetishism is so rampant as to override every single attempt at rational discussion and debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has not already been said ad infinitum?
> 
> Look at gun control 25 years ago, and look now.  You people have clearly lost your 20th Century attempt to subvert this Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another dullard who doesn't understand the OP topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand the topic just fine, and gave it all the attention it deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts prove otherwise.
Click to expand...


As follows the nature of your professed "scientific consensus", that is your opinion, and carries the same weight as your "consensus".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, the feelings of the polled don't equal facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are a tally of the current consensus of scientists on the pertinent issues that gun fetishists like you and your ilk constantly lie about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A consensus on whether strong gun laws reduce homicide?
> Why not just show the proof? You know, instead of asking for their opinions?
> You know, the proof that you and your ilk constantly lie about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading the OP.
> 
> These are scientists who study this topic so they already know the data on which they are basing their professional positions.
Click to expand...


*These are scientists who study this topic
*
Social scientists. It's not like they're discovering quasars or measuring temperatures.

* they already know the data*

This poll was about their opinion, no data to be seen.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, the feelings of the polled don't equal facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are a tally of the current consensus of scientists on the pertinent issues that gun fetishists like you and your ilk constantly lie about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A consensus on whether strong gun laws reduce homicide?
> Why not just show the proof? You know, instead of asking for their opinions?
> You know, the proof that you and your ilk constantly lie about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading the OP.
> 
> These are scientists who study this topic so they already know the data on which they are basing their professional positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *These are scientists who study this topic
> *
> Social scientists. It's not like they're discovering quasars or measuring temperatures.
> 
> * they already know the data*
> 
> This poll was about their opinion, no data to be seen.
Click to expand...


Guns are not quasars or temperatures but they are a subject for scientists to study.

Too bad you don't get to decide what scientists are allowed to study but given that gun fetishists have an authoritarian mindset I am sure you would like to deny them their freedom to study guns.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, the feelings of the polled don't equal facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are a tally of the current consensus of scientists on the pertinent issues that gun fetishists like you and your ilk constantly lie about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A consensus on whether strong gun laws reduce homicide?
> Why not just show the proof? You know, instead of asking for their opinions?
> You know, the proof that you and your ilk constantly lie about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading the OP.
> 
> These are scientists who study this topic so they already know the data on which they are basing their professional positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *These are scientists who study this topic
> *
> Social scientists. It's not like they're discovering quasars or measuring temperatures.
> 
> * they already know the data*
> 
> This poll was about their opinion, no data to be seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are not quasars or temperatures but they are a subject for scientists to study.
> 
> Too bad you don't get to decide what scientists are allowed to study but given that gun fetishists have an authoritarian mindset I am sure you would like to deny them their freedom to study guns.
Click to expand...


*Guns are not quasars or temperatures but they are a subject for scientists to study.
*
And either strong gun laws reduce murder rates or they don't. So why waste time to poll opinions?
Show the facts. Start with Chicago and DC.
*
 I am sure you would like to deny them their freedom to study guns.
*
I'm sure that you'd like to jail those that disagree with your scientists, or is that only the case with "global warming".


----------



## Derideo_Te

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are a tally of the current consensus of scientists on the pertinent issues that gun fetishists like you and your ilk constantly lie about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A consensus on whether strong gun laws reduce homicide?
> Why not just show the proof? You know, instead of asking for their opinions?
> You know, the proof that you and your ilk constantly lie about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading the OP.
> 
> These are scientists who study this topic so they already know the data on which they are basing their professional positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *These are scientists who study this topic
> *
> Social scientists. It's not like they're discovering quasars or measuring temperatures.
> 
> * they already know the data*
> 
> This poll was about their opinion, no data to be seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are not quasars or temperatures but they are a subject for scientists to study.
> 
> Too bad you don't get to decide what scientists are allowed to study but given that gun fetishists have an authoritarian mindset I am sure you would like to deny them their freedom to study guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Guns are not quasars or temperatures but they are a subject for scientists to study.
> *
> And either strong gun laws reduce murder rates or they don't. So why waste time to poll opinions?
> Show the facts. Start with Chicago and DC.
> *
> I am sure you would like to deny them their freedom to study guns.
> *
> I'm sure that you'd like to jail those that disagree with your scientists, or is that only the case with "global warming".
Click to expand...


There are no "strong gun laws" in this nation because rabid gun fetishists like yourself squeal like schoolgirls any time someone dares to suggest even reasonable measures like universal background checks.


----------



## Correll

Derideo_Te said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like someone tired of hearing all the bullshit propaganda that goes on about actually having or possessing a gun for self defense against intruders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7 out of 10 scientists don't accept the BS propaganda that is constantly being spewed by the gun fetishists.
Click to expand...


Opinion polls are not science.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Correll said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like someone tired of hearing all the bullshit propaganda that goes on about actually having or possessing a gun for self defense against intruders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7 out of 10 scientists don't accept the BS propaganda that is constantly being spewed by the gun fetishists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion polls are not science.
Click to expand...


No one was expecting you to comprehend the OP and make a worthy post on the topic so once again you have lived down to my low expectations of you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A consensus on whether strong gun laws reduce homicide?
> Why not just show the proof? You know, instead of asking for their opinions?
> You know, the proof that you and your ilk constantly lie about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading the OP.
> 
> These are scientists who study this topic so they already know the data on which they are basing their professional positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *These are scientists who study this topic
> *
> Social scientists. It's not like they're discovering quasars or measuring temperatures.
> 
> * they already know the data*
> 
> This poll was about their opinion, no data to be seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are not quasars or temperatures but they are a subject for scientists to study.
> 
> Too bad you don't get to decide what scientists are allowed to study but given that gun fetishists have an authoritarian mindset I am sure you would like to deny them their freedom to study guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Guns are not quasars or temperatures but they are a subject for scientists to study.
> *
> And either strong gun laws reduce murder rates or they don't. So why waste time to poll opinions?
> Show the facts. Start with Chicago and DC.
> *
> I am sure you would like to deny them their freedom to study guns.
> *
> I'm sure that you'd like to jail those that disagree with your scientists, or is that only the case with "global warming".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no "strong gun laws" in this nation because rabid gun fetishists like yourself squeal like schoolgirls any time someone dares to suggest even reasonable measures like universal background checks.
Click to expand...


Guns were, until very recently, illegal in both Chicago and DC.
Hopefully your "scientists" know more about the issue than you.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading the OP.
> 
> These are scientists who study this topic so they already know the data on which they are basing their professional positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *These are scientists who study this topic
> *
> Social scientists. It's not like they're discovering quasars or measuring temperatures.
> 
> * they already know the data*
> 
> This poll was about their opinion, no data to be seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are not quasars or temperatures but they are a subject for scientists to study.
> 
> Too bad you don't get to decide what scientists are allowed to study but given that gun fetishists have an authoritarian mindset I am sure you would like to deny them their freedom to study guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Guns are not quasars or temperatures but they are a subject for scientists to study.
> *
> And either strong gun laws reduce murder rates or they don't. So why waste time to poll opinions?
> Show the facts. Start with Chicago and DC.
> *
> I am sure you would like to deny them their freedom to study guns.
> *
> I'm sure that you'd like to jail those that disagree with your scientists, or is that only the case with "global warming".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no "strong gun laws" in this nation because rabid gun fetishists like yourself squeal like schoolgirls any time someone dares to suggest even reasonable measures like universal background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns were, until very recently, illegal in both Chicago and DC.
> Hopefully your "scientists" know more about the issue than you.
Click to expand...


You have no need to convince me any further of your abject gun fetishist denial of the reality that your paranoia has inflicted on this nation as documented by the OP.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *These are scientists who study this topic
> *
> Social scientists. It's not like they're discovering quasars or measuring temperatures.
> 
> * they already know the data*
> 
> This poll was about their opinion, no data to be seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are not quasars or temperatures but they are a subject for scientists to study.
> 
> Too bad you don't get to decide what scientists are allowed to study but given that gun fetishists have an authoritarian mindset I am sure you would like to deny them their freedom to study guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Guns are not quasars or temperatures but they are a subject for scientists to study.
> *
> And either strong gun laws reduce murder rates or they don't. So why waste time to poll opinions?
> Show the facts. Start with Chicago and DC.
> *
> I am sure you would like to deny them their freedom to study guns.
> *
> I'm sure that you'd like to jail those that disagree with your scientists, or is that only the case with "global warming".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no "strong gun laws" in this nation because rabid gun fetishists like yourself squeal like schoolgirls any time someone dares to suggest even reasonable measures like universal background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns were, until very recently, illegal in both Chicago and DC.
> Hopefully your "scientists" know more about the issue than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no need to convince me any further of your abject gun fetishist denial of the reality that your paranoia has inflicted on this nation as documented by the OP.
Click to expand...


*denial of the reality*

Chicago and DC had very strict gun laws. Did they reduce their murder rates?
Let me know if you ever return to reality. LOL!


----------



## Correll

Derideo_Te said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like someone tired of hearing all the bullshit propaganda that goes on about actually having or possessing a gun for self defense against intruders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7 out of 10 scientists don't accept the BS propaganda that is constantly being spewed by the gun fetishists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion polls are not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one was expecting you to comprehend the OP and make a worthy post on the topic so once again you have lived down to my low expectations of you.
Click to expand...


Opinion polls are not science. A poll showing a consensus is not science. 

It is not being anti-science to disagree with an opinion poll.

It is not being PRO-SCIENCE to cite an opinion poll as proof.

THat is not how science works.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Correll said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else who completely missed the entire point of the OP!
> 
> 
> 
> More like someone tired of hearing all the bullshit propaganda that goes on about actually having or possessing a gun for self defense against intruders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7 out of 10 scientists don't accept the BS propaganda that is constantly being spewed by the gun fetishists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion polls are not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one was expecting you to comprehend the OP and make a worthy post on the topic so once again you have lived down to my low expectations of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion polls are not science. A poll showing a consensus is not science.
> 
> It is not being anti-science to disagree with an opinion poll.
> 
> It is not being PRO-SCIENCE to cite an opinion poll as proof.
> 
> THat is not how science works.
Click to expand...


Let me remind you again that you don't need to convince me any further that you lack the basic cognitive skills necessary to understand the OP topic.


----------



## Correll

Derideo_Te said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> More like someone tired of hearing all the bullshit propaganda that goes on about actually having or possessing a gun for self defense against intruders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7 out of 10 scientists don't accept the BS propaganda that is constantly being spewed by the gun fetishists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion polls are not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one was expecting you to comprehend the OP and make a worthy post on the topic so once again you have lived down to my low expectations of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion polls are not science. A poll showing a consensus is not science.
> 
> It is not being anti-science to disagree with an opinion poll.
> 
> It is not being PRO-SCIENCE to cite an opinion poll as proof.
> 
> THat is not how science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me remind you again that you don't need to convince me any further that you lack the basic cognitive skills necessary to understand the OP topic.
Click to expand...



And opinion polls are still not science. 

It is not being anti-science to disagree with an opinion poll.

It is not pro-science to cite an opinion poll as though it proof.

That is still not how science works.


----------



## Dante

Correll said:


> How do you feel about the IQ gap?
> 
> Pro-science or anti?


The IQ gap on usmb?

It's purely bs. Everyone here is a genius as evidenced by their words


----------



## Correll

Dante said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about the IQ gap?
> 
> Pro-science or anti?
> 
> 
> 
> The IQ gap on usmb?
> 
> It's purely bs. Everyone here is a genius as evidenced by their words
Click to expand...



Refusing to answer? Science isn't afraid of social taboos.


----------



## Two Thumbs

the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland

they require all their citizens to be armed.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Two Thumbs said:


> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.



They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.


----------



## peach174

No surprise since the anti gun crowds have been pushing their biased opinions on the people for the last 50 years or so.
They have gotten the people, especially women to actually be afraid of them.
It's good to see that Women are starting to wake up to that kind of mental manipulation and have started buying guns now.


----------



## nat4900

The NRA (and its many members need to realize that the association has become little more than a puppet for gun manufacturers who, in turn, are providing over 50% of the association's yearly budget.


----------



## Correll

Derideo_Te said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
Click to expand...



That doesn't really deny his point.

Being in the military doesn't make you a better person. 

If guns are the problem, then Switzerland should have nearly the same crime and shooting problem(s) as the US.

But they don't.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Derideo_Te said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
Click to expand...

they are required to keep and maintain their weapons for life.

most guns and lowest crime rate plus military discipline


but lets not think about copying them, lets take away our rights b/c the government will protect us.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Correll said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't really deny his point.
> 
> Being in the military doesn't make you a better person.
> 
> If guns are the problem, then Switzerland should have nearly the same crime and shooting problem(s) as the US.
> 
> But they don't.
Click to expand...

every house has at least 1 AR in it and the ammo to go batshit on a lot of people.

An armed society is a polite society


----------



## Correll

Two Thumbs said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't really deny his point.
> 
> Being in the military doesn't make you a better person.
> 
> If guns are the problem, then Switzerland should have nearly the same crime and shooting problem(s) as the US.
> 
> But they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every house has at least 1 AR in it and the ammo to go batshit on a lot of people.
> 
> An armed society is a polite society
Click to expand...



Well, maybe.

It certainly is strong evidence that guns aren't the problem.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Correll said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't really deny his point.
> 
> Being in the military doesn't make you a better person.
> 
> If guns are the problem, then Switzerland should have nearly the same crime and shooting problem(s) as the US.
> 
> But they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every house has at least 1 AR in it and the ammo to go batshit on a lot of people.
> 
> An armed society is a polite society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe.
> 
> It certainly is strong evidence that guns aren't the problem.
Click to expand...

its the real world v scientific polls (opinions)

see, leftist love to quote scientist, feeling that they would never lie, for money or be wrong.  And they ignore the real world results that don't confirm what the scientist told them.

the most armed society has the lowest crime rate and they have had it for a long time, but scientist tell them to get rid of guns, so they deny reality and go with theory.

like socialism.  in theory it's a great idea, in reality it brings misery and pain, but leftist deny the reality and go with theory b/c a scientist said so.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Correll said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't really deny his point.
> 
> Being in the military doesn't make you a better person.
> 
> If guns are the problem, then Switzerland should have nearly the same crime and shooting problem(s) as the US.
> 
> But they don't.
Click to expand...


Switzerland has a "well regulated militia" that has trained all of their gun owners on what it means to be a responsible gun owner.

Gun fetishists in this nation lack the same discipline. 

There is a another significant difference between Switzerland and the USA. They are a social democracy with safety nets and universal healthcare plus they have a well regulated economy.

None of the above applies to the USA.

Those factors all play into crime and gun violence.

Which is what the majority of the scientists in the OP know and gun fetishists like you and your ignorant ilk don't.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Two Thumbs said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they are required to keep and maintain their weapons for life.
> 
> most guns and lowest crime rate plus military discipline
> 
> 
> but lets not think about copying them, lets take away our rights b/c the government will protect us.
Click to expand...


Non sequitur response that has nothing to do with the OP topic. 

If this nation emulated the highly regulated social democracy that is Switzerland you would be screaming about "losing your freedoms" in every other area of your life.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Two Thumbs said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't really deny his point.
> 
> Being in the military doesn't make you a better person.
> 
> If guns are the problem, then Switzerland should have nearly the same crime and shooting problem(s) as the US.
> 
> But they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every house has at least 1 AR in it and the ammo to go batshit on a lot of people.
> 
> An armed society is a polite society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe.
> 
> It certainly is strong evidence that guns aren't the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its the real world v scientific polls (opinions)
> 
> see, leftist love to quote scientist, feeling that they would never lie, for money or be wrong.  And they ignore the real world results that don't confirm what the scientist told them.
> 
> the most armed society has the lowest crime rate and they have had it for a long time, but scientist tell them to get rid of guns, so they deny reality and go with theory.
> 
> like socialism.  in theory it's a great idea, in reality it brings misery and pain, but leftist deny the reality and go with theory b/c a scientist said so.
Click to expand...


Ironic given that you just used the example of a social democracy to prove that it actually works.


----------



## Correll

Derideo_Te said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't really deny his point.
> 
> Being in the military doesn't make you a better person.
> 
> If guns are the problem, then Switzerland should have nearly the same crime and shooting problem(s) as the US.
> 
> But they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Switzerland has a "well regulated militia" that has trained all of their gun owners on what it means to be a responsible gun owner.
> 
> Gun fetishists in this nation lack the same discipline.
> 
> There is a another significant difference between Switzerland and the USA. They are a social democracy with safety nets and universal healthcare plus they have a well regulated economy.
> 
> None of the above applies to the USA.
> 
> Those factors all play into crime and gun violence.
> 
> Which is what the majority of the scientists in the OP know and gun fetishists like you and your ignorant ilk don't.
Click to expand...



Being in a militia doesn't change the social factors that make people criminals. It could be responsible for any lower rate of accidents, but not lower crime rates.

Yes. Other factors play into "crime and gun violence".

And Switzerland is strong evidence that guns is not a big part of that.

I would be happy to speculate on the other causes. 

But this thread is about you lib attempts to blame guns.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Correll said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't really deny his point.
> 
> Being in the military doesn't make you a better person.
> 
> If guns are the problem, then Switzerland should have nearly the same crime and shooting problem(s) as the US.
> 
> But they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Switzerland has a "well regulated militia" that has trained all of their gun owners on what it means to be a responsible gun owner.
> 
> Gun fetishists in this nation lack the same discipline.
> 
> There is a another significant difference between Switzerland and the USA. They are a social democracy with safety nets and universal healthcare plus they have a well regulated economy.
> 
> None of the above applies to the USA.
> 
> Those factors all play into crime and gun violence.
> 
> Which is what the majority of the scientists in the OP know and gun fetishists like you and your ignorant ilk don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being in a militia doesn't change the social factors that make people criminals. It could be responsible for any lower rate of accidents, but not lower crime rates.
> 
> Yes. Other factors play into "crime and gun violence".
> 
> And Switzerland is strong evidence that guns is not a big part of that.
> 
> I would be happy to speculate on the other causes.
> 
> But this thread is about you lib attempts to blame guns.
Click to expand...


Lying about the OP topic isn't going to change it.

Using Switzerland as an example exposes the fact that liberal social policies work to eliminate crime and gun violence. 

Compare those to the insane "more guns, less regulations" mantra of the gun fetishists in this nation and it is patently obvious that what you advocate has been, and still is, a complete and utter failure in every respect.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Derideo_Te said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't really deny his point.
> 
> Being in the military doesn't make you a better person.
> 
> If guns are the problem, then Switzerland should have nearly the same crime and shooting problem(s) as the US.
> 
> But they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Switzerland has a "well regulated militia" that has trained all of their gun owners on what it means to be a responsible gun owner.
> 
> Gun fetishists in this nation lack the same discipline.
> 
> There is a another significant difference between Switzerland and the USA. They are a social democracy with safety nets and universal healthcare plus they have a well regulated economy.
> 
> None of the above applies to the USA.
> 
> Those factors all play into crime and gun violence.
> 
> Which is what the majority of the scientists in the OP know and gun fetishists like you and your ignorant ilk don't.
Click to expand...



gotta bring non-sense in to defend your theory v reality.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Derideo_Te said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they are required to keep and maintain their weapons for life.
> 
> most guns and lowest crime rate plus military discipline
> 
> 
> but lets not think about copying them, lets take away our rights b/c the government will protect us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur response that has nothing to do with the OP topic.
> 
> If this nation emulated the highly regulated social democracy that is Switzerland you would be screaming about "losing your freedoms" in every other area of your life.
Click to expand...

gibberish

leftist demand we be like the eu, constantly.

but I show you success and you cry about something else.

theory v reality, you hate reality


----------



## Derideo_Te

Two Thumbs said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't really deny his point.
> 
> Being in the military doesn't make you a better person.
> 
> If guns are the problem, then Switzerland should have nearly the same crime and shooting problem(s) as the US.
> 
> But they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Switzerland has a "well regulated militia" that has trained all of their gun owners on what it means to be a responsible gun owner.
> 
> Gun fetishists in this nation lack the same discipline.
> 
> There is a another significant difference between Switzerland and the USA. They are a social democracy with safety nets and universal healthcare plus they have a well regulated economy.
> 
> None of the above applies to the USA.
> 
> Those factors all play into crime and gun violence.
> 
> Which is what the majority of the scientists in the OP know and gun fetishists like you and your ignorant ilk don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> gotta bring non-sense in to defend your theory v reality.
Click to expand...


Your failure to comprehend is your problem.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Derideo_Te said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't really deny his point.
> 
> Being in the military doesn't make you a better person.
> 
> If guns are the problem, then Switzerland should have nearly the same crime and shooting problem(s) as the US.
> 
> But they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every house has at least 1 AR in it and the ammo to go batshit on a lot of people.
> 
> An armed society is a polite society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe.
> 
> It certainly is strong evidence that guns aren't the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its the real world v scientific polls (opinions)
> 
> see, leftist love to quote scientist, feeling that they would never lie, for money or be wrong.  And they ignore the real world results that don't confirm what the scientist told them.
> 
> the most armed society has the lowest crime rate and they have had it for a long time, but scientist tell them to get rid of guns, so they deny reality and go with theory.
> 
> like socialism.  in theory it's a great idea, in reality it brings misery and pain, but leftist deny the reality and go with theory b/c a scientist said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic given that you just used the example of a social democracy to prove that it actually works.
Click to expand...

Not really, since we both know it's just a matter of time before they to run out of opm


----------



## Derideo_Te

Two Thumbs said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they are required to keep and maintain their weapons for life.
> 
> most guns and lowest crime rate plus military discipline
> 
> 
> but lets not think about copying them, lets take away our rights b/c the government will protect us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur response that has nothing to do with the OP topic.
> 
> If this nation emulated the highly regulated social democracy that is Switzerland you would be screaming about "losing your freedoms" in every other area of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish
> 
> leftist demand we be like the eu, constantly.
> 
> but I show you success and you cry about something else.
> 
> theory v reality, you hate reality
Click to expand...


Gun fetishists like you live in a Hollywood fantasy.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Derideo_Te said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't really deny his point.
> 
> Being in the military doesn't make you a better person.
> 
> If guns are the problem, then Switzerland should have nearly the same crime and shooting problem(s) as the US.
> 
> But they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Switzerland has a "well regulated militia" that has trained all of their gun owners on what it means to be a responsible gun owner.
> 
> Gun fetishists in this nation lack the same discipline.
> 
> There is a another significant difference between Switzerland and the USA. They are a social democracy with safety nets and universal healthcare plus they have a well regulated economy.
> 
> None of the above applies to the USA.
> 
> Those factors all play into crime and gun violence.
> 
> Which is what the majority of the scientists in the OP know and gun fetishists like you and your ignorant ilk don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> gotta bring non-sense in to defend your theory v reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your failure to comprehend is your problem.
Click to expand...

wrong

I see reality and think if that happens here reality can repeat.
You hear theories of failed ideas and think it will still work, this time.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Derideo_Te said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland
> 
> they require all their citizens to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they are required to keep and maintain their weapons for life.
> 
> most guns and lowest crime rate plus military discipline
> 
> 
> but lets not think about copying them, lets take away our rights b/c the government will protect us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur response that has nothing to do with the OP topic.
> 
> If this nation emulated the highly regulated social democracy that is Switzerland you would be screaming about "losing your freedoms" in every other area of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish
> 
> leftist demand we be like the eu, constantly.
> 
> but I show you success and you cry about something else.
> 
> theory v reality, you hate reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun fetishists like you live in a Hollywood fantasy.
Click to expand...

so supporting our rights is a fetish now


fyi;  I don't own a single gun and never have.

yet I support our Constitution.  Why don't you?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

The NRA does more to undermine and jeopardize the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any mythical 'gun grabber.'


----------



## Derideo_Te

Two Thumbs said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> They require all male citizens to belong to the military but typical dullard gun fetishist response.
> 
> 
> 
> they are required to keep and maintain their weapons for life.
> 
> most guns and lowest crime rate plus military discipline
> 
> 
> but lets not think about copying them, lets take away our rights b/c the government will protect us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur response that has nothing to do with the OP topic.
> 
> If this nation emulated the highly regulated social democracy that is Switzerland you would be screaming about "losing your freedoms" in every other area of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish
> 
> leftist demand we be like the eu, constantly.
> 
> but I show you success and you cry about something else.
> 
> theory v reality, you hate reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun fetishists like you live in a Hollywood fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so supporting our rights is a fetish now
> 
> 
> fyi;  I don't own a single gun and never have.
> 
> yet I support our Constitution.  Why don't you?
Click to expand...


Lying only hurts your own credibility.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Derideo_Te said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are required to keep and maintain their weapons for life.
> 
> most guns and lowest crime rate plus military discipline
> 
> 
> but lets not think about copying them, lets take away our rights b/c the government will protect us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur response that has nothing to do with the OP topic.
> 
> If this nation emulated the highly regulated social democracy that is Switzerland you would be screaming about "losing your freedoms" in every other area of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish
> 
> leftist demand we be like the eu, constantly.
> 
> but I show you success and you cry about something else.
> 
> theory v reality, you hate reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun fetishists like you live in a Hollywood fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so supporting our rights is a fetish now
> 
> 
> fyi;  I don't own a single gun and never have.
> 
> yet I support our Constitution.  Why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying only hurts your own credibility.
Click to expand...

For most on the right it really doesn't matter, having lost all credibility long ago.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dante said:


> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*


So you ADMIT opinion is now substituted for facts by scientists. Thanks for the admission.


----------



## Dante

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> So you ADMIT opinion is now substituted for facts by scientists. Thanks for the admission.
Click to expand...

Substituted for facts?

How in the world does somebody with more than 3 brain cells come to that conclusion RetiredGySgt  No wonder I used to read you screen names as Retarded Gay Slug


----------



## Two Thumbs

Derideo_Te said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are required to keep and maintain their weapons for life.
> 
> most guns and lowest crime rate plus military discipline
> 
> 
> but lets not think about copying them, lets take away our rights b/c the government will protect us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur response that has nothing to do with the OP topic.
> 
> If this nation emulated the highly regulated social democracy that is Switzerland you would be screaming about "losing your freedoms" in every other area of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish
> 
> leftist demand we be like the eu, constantly.
> 
> but I show you success and you cry about something else.
> 
> theory v reality, you hate reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun fetishists like you live in a Hollywood fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so supporting our rights is a fetish now
> 
> 
> fyi;  I don't own a single gun and never have.
> 
> yet I support our Constitution.  Why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying only hurts your own credibility.
Click to expand...

you make a false accusation the claim I'm lying.

what a poser


----------



## Two Thumbs

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur response that has nothing to do with the OP topic.
> 
> If this nation emulated the highly regulated social democracy that is Switzerland you would be screaming about "losing your freedoms" in every other area of your life.
> 
> 
> 
> gibberish
> 
> leftist demand we be like the eu, constantly.
> 
> but I show you success and you cry about something else.
> 
> theory v reality, you hate reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun fetishists like you live in a Hollywood fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so supporting our rights is a fetish now
> 
> 
> fyi;  I don't own a single gun and never have.
> 
> yet I support our Constitution.  Why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying only hurts your own credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For most on the right it really doesn't matter, having lost all credibility long ago.
Click to expand...

You hate the Constitution, you're opposition, constant opposition, to it is our proof.

but you lie and say you support it, when your actions prove the opposite.


----------



## Dante

two thumbs up his arse

it's a circus act


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Dante said:


> two thumbs up his arse
> 
> it's a circus act



Why do you kill threads ?

Just asking.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Dante said:


> two thumbs up his arse
> 
> it's a circus act


Poor dante, you're such a poser you can't come up with anything new in the face of truth so you go into a stunned reeling state of mind and regurgitate the old ass jokes that all the loser go with.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

From the linked article: 

'A 2014 meta-analysis, conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco, of the scientific studies on guns and suicide concluded that access to firearms increases the risk of suicide. Similarly, the 2012 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention from the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention and the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that “firearm access is a risk factor for suicide in the United States.”'

There is no doubt that this is both true and accurate, only a ridiculous idiot would attempt to deny this fact.

There is also no doubt that such a fact is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the right of citizens to possess and carry firearms.

Indeed, citizens have a fundamental right to possess and carry firearms pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, as enshrined in the Second Amendment.

And like other rights citizens are not required to 'justify' exercising a right as a 'prerequisite' to in fact do so; government may not seek to preempt, limit, restrict, or deny citizens their rights predicated solely on what citizens 'might' do, such as commit suicide with a firearm – just as government may not seek to prohibit free speech because a citizen 'might' yell fire in a crowded theater, or prohibit citizens to peaceably assemble because someone 'might' incite a riot.


----------



## Two Thumbs

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> From the linked article:
> 
> 'A 2014 meta-analysis, conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco, of the scientific studies on guns and suicide concluded that access to firearms increases the risk of suicide. Similarly, the 2012 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention from the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention and the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that “firearm access is a risk factor for suicide in the United States.”'
> 
> There is no doubt that this is both true and accurate, only a ridiculous idiot would attempt to deny this fact.
> 
> There is also no doubt that such a fact is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the right of citizens to possess and carry firearms.
> 
> Indeed, citizens have a fundamental right to possess and carry firearms pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, as enshrined in the Second Amendment.
> 
> And like other rights citizens are not required to 'justify' exercising a right as a 'prerequisite' to in fact do so; government may not seek to preempt, limit, restrict, or deny citizens their rights predicated solely on what citizens 'might' do, such as commit suicide with a firearm – just as government may not seek to prohibit free speech because a citizen 'might' yell fire in a crowded theater, or prohibit citizens to peaceably assemble because someone 'might' incite a riot.


SUICIDE DEATH RATE BY COUNTRY

interesting list of facts not theory

N Koreans with Zero access to arms have the second highest suicide rate in the world while the US comes in 47th.

proving, with numbers and facts, that those leftist are a bunch of lying bitches that hate the Constitution and want to see it undone.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Two Thumbs said:


> N Koreans with Zero access to arms



Two million N Koreans have access to firearms. 

Obviously you are allergic to facts and incapable of doing anything but kneejerk emoting.

Since you have nothing of value to contribute to the OP your subsequent drivel will be treated with the contempt that it deserves. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Dante

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> two thumbs up his arse
> 
> it's a circus act
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you kill threads ?
> 
> Just asking.
Click to expand...

while...
imitation is considered one of the most sincerest forms of flattery, coming from you it's pathetic


----------



## Dante

Two Thumbs said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> gibberish
> 
> leftist demand we be like the eu, constantly.
> 
> but I show you success and you cry about something else.
> 
> theory v reality, you hate reality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun fetishists like you live in a Hollywood fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so supporting our rights is a fetish now
> 
> 
> fyi;  I don't own a single gun and never have.
> 
> yet I support our Constitution.  Why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying only hurts your own credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For most on the right it really doesn't matter, having lost all credibility long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hate the Constitution, you're opposition, constant opposition, to it is our proof.
> 
> but you lie and say you support it, when your actions prove the opposite.
Click to expand...

According too the alarmist reactionary known as Two Thumbs us his arse,  C_Clayton_Jones  is supposed to hate the US Constitution based upon a bunch of some unnamed and unlisted opposition?  Is this anything like Uncle Joe McCarthy waving his infamous lists?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dante said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> So you ADMIT opinion is now substituted for facts by scientists. Thanks for the admission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Substituted for facts?
> 
> How in the world does somebody with more than 3 brain cells come to that conclusion RetiredGySgt  No wonder I used to read you screen names as Retarded Gay Slug
Click to expand...

These so called scientists have NO FACTS, they are stating their OPINIONS devoid of actual facts as reported by this paper. That you and your ilk buy it proves who among us are stupid.


----------



## Dante

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> So you ADMIT opinion is now substituted for facts by scientists. Thanks for the admission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Substituted for facts?
> 
> How in the world does somebody with more than 3 brain cells come to that conclusion RetiredGySgt  No wonder I used to read you screen names as Retarded Gay Slug
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These so called scientists have NO FACTS, they are stating their OPINIONS devoid of actual facts as reported by this paper. That you and your ilk buy it proves who among us are stupid.
Click to expand...

...  what is it you are missing

M_y first step was to put together *a list of relevant scientists*. I decided that to qualify for the survey *the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal*, and that he or she should be *an active scientist* — someone who had published an article in the last four years. *I was interested in social science and policy issues*, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)._​


----------



## Anathema

Just another reason to ignore the Liberal Religion of Science.

Until the Liberals have the support to ammend the Constitution, the science means nothing.

Either way, the only way I'll ever lose my firearms is from my cold, dead hands.


----------



## Dante

Doctor: My opinion is you have an incurable dis-ease

RetiredGYSGT: That's only your opinion


----------



## Dante

Anathema said:


> the only way I'll ever lose my firearms is from my cold, dead hands.


no one is seriously trying to take all guns away


----------



## Anathema

Dante said:


> no one is seriously trying to take all guns away



When the Government tells me I cannot purchase a specific model or type of firearm, or that I must acquire additional, costly licenses to do so, they have already taken those firearms away.


----------



## Dante

Anathema said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one is seriously trying to take all guns away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Government tells me I cannot purchase a specific model or type of firearm, or that I must acquire additional, costly licenses to do so, they have already taken those firearms away.
Click to expand...

REally?

You cannot buy and own a cannon


----------



## Anathema

Dante said:


> Really?
> 
> You cannot buy and own a cannon



In the Communistwealth where I live, I cannot legally purchase firearns which are made, assembled, and tested by friends of mine less than 35 miles from where I live.


----------



## Dante

Anathema said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> You cannot buy and own a cannon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Communistwealth where I live, I cannot legally purchase firearns which are made, assembled, and tested by friends of mine less than 35 miles from where I live.
Click to expand...

so move and stop being such a whiney f()ck


----------



## Anathema

Dante said:


> so move and stop being such a whiney f()ck



The Second Amendment is FEDERAL Law.  It should trump ANY/ALL state laws restricting purchase and possession of firearms.


----------



## Dante

Anathema said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> so move and stop being such a whiney f()ck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is FEDERAL Law.  It should trump ANY/ALL state laws restricting purchase and possession of firearms.
Click to expand...

do you even know wtf you are talking about?


----------



## Anathema

Dante said:


> do you even know wtf you are talking about?



I know exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## Dante

Anathema said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you even know wtf you are talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

you keep telling yourself that junior...keep telling yourself that


----------



## flacaltenn

Dante said:


> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*



Excuse me.. There's a big difference between political "science" and SCIENCE. 
Having the requisite ignorant bliss of science that liberal arts leftists often have -- that might not have occurred to you before you went off on the rant. 

There's not a lot of physics or math or chemistry involved in lying with statistics. Which is the basis of most academic work in political or social "science"..


----------



## westwall

Dante said:


> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*








"Polling"  Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Anathema said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> so move and stop being such a whiney f()ck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is FEDERAL Law.  It should trump ANY/ALL state laws restricting purchase and possession of firearms.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law as determined by the Federal courts, as is the case with the rest of the Constitution.

State laws that conform to Second Amendment jurisprudence are in fact Constitutional, including state laws that place restrictions on firearms.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Dante said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only way I'll ever lose my firearms is from my cold, dead hands.
> 
> 
> 
> no one is seriously trying to take all guns away
Click to expand...

No one is trying to take any guns 'away.'


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> so move and stop being such a whiney f()ck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is FEDERAL Law.  It should trump ANY/ALL state laws restricting purchase and possession of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law as determined by the Federal courts, as is the case with the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> State laws that conform to Second Amendment jurisprudence are in fact Constitutional, including state laws that place restrictions on firearms.
Click to expand...







You mean all of those State laws that were recently ruled unconstitutional?  Those laws?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Anathema said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one is seriously trying to take all guns away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Government tells me I cannot purchase a specific model or type of firearm, or that I must acquire additional, costly licenses to do so, they have already taken those firearms away.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Government can't 'take away' that which you never possessed.

And you currently have access to other types of firearms for lawful self-defense, in accordance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Dante said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> two thumbs up his arse
> 
> it's a circus act
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you kill threads ?
> 
> Just asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> while...
> imitation is considered one of the most sincerest forms of flattery, coming from you it's pathetic
Click to expand...


Good thing you aren't flattered....

Hypocrite.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Polling"  Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!
Click to expand...


Yes, well you've got this one nailed down.


----------



## westwall

Dante said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one is seriously trying to take all guns away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Government tells me I cannot purchase a specific model or type of firearm, or that I must acquire additional, costly licenses to do so, they have already taken those firearms away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> REally?
> 
> You cannot buy and own a cannon
Click to expand...







Care to bet?






WWII (1945 dated) Russian 45mm anti tank gun. Registered destructive device and *functional gun*. Can transfer on Form 4. Traverse and elevation wheels work, good bore, solid rubber tires. Breech ring has been repaired by welding. One 45mm brass piece and inert shell included. Also included is a 20mm vulcan sub-cal adapter. 20mm vulcan practice rounds are available for an extra cost if you purchase this gun. Email for more pictures. Buyer to arrange shipping. Interesting trades considered.

http://bluffutah.org/wp-content/gallery/muley-point/12911572-muley.jpg


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Anathema said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> You cannot buy and own a cannon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Communistwealth where I live, I cannot legally purchase firearns which are made, assembled, and tested by friends of mine less than 35 miles from where I live.
Click to expand...

And have you filed suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of such laws; until such time as a Federal court holds that your state's restrictions violate the Second Amendment, those measures are in fact Constitutional, where your rights have not been 'violated.'


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> You cannot buy and own a cannon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Communistwealth where I live, I cannot legally purchase firearns which are made, assembled, and tested by friends of mine less than 35 miles from where I live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And have you filed suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of such laws; until such time as a Federal court holds that your state's restrictions violate the Second Amendment, those measures are in fact Constitutional, where your rights have not been 'violated.'
Click to expand...






Wrong, they are de facto (not de jure) LEGAL, their constitutionality are in question until they are ruled upon.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

westwall said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> You cannot buy and own a cannon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Communistwealth where I live, I cannot legally purchase firearns which are made, assembled, and tested by friends of mine less than 35 miles from where I live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And have you filed suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of such laws; until such time as a Federal court holds that your state's restrictions violate the Second Amendment, those measures are in fact Constitutional, where your rights have not been 'violated.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, they are de facto (not de jure) LEGAL, their constitutionality are in question until they are ruled upon.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Laws are presumed to be Constitutional until a Federal court rules otherwise. (See _US v. Morrison_)

Laws, their enactment and enforcement, are the purview of the political process, not judicial, until subject to a ruling by the courts. 

Indeed, the first course of action to address a law citizens believe to be un-Constitutional is through the political process, to have the law repealed or amended to remove its provisions intended to disadvantage citizens.


----------



## Dante

flacaltenn said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me.. There's a big difference between political "science" and SCIENCE.
> Having the requisite ignorant bliss of science that liberal arts leftists often have -- that might not have occurred to you before you went off on the rant.
> 
> There's not a lot of physics or math or chemistry involved in lying with statistics. Which is the basis of most academic work in political or social "science"..
Click to expand...

So like others your argument isn't about science, it's about ideology.


----------



## Dante

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Polling"  Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!
Click to expand...

_survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,_


----------



## Dante

westwall said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> so move and stop being such a whiney f()ck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is FEDERAL Law.  It should trump ANY/ALL state laws restricting purchase and possession of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law as determined by the Federal courts, as is the case with the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> State laws that conform to Second Amendment jurisprudence are in fact Constitutional, including state laws that place restrictions on firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean all of those State laws that were recently ruled unconstitutional?  Those laws?
Click to expand...

So now you agree with the Supreme Court having a say


----------



## Dante

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one is seriously trying to take all guns away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Government tells me I cannot purchase a specific model or type of firearm, or that I must acquire additional, costly licenses to do so, they have already taken those firearms away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> REally?
> 
> You cannot buy and own a cannon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Care to bet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WWII (1945 dated) Russian 45mm anti tank gun. Registered destructive device and *functional gun*. Can transfer on Form 4. Traverse and elevation wheels work, good bore, solid rubber tires. Breech ring has been repaired by welding. One 45mm brass piece and inert shell included. Also included is a 20mm vulcan sub-cal adapter. 20mm vulcan practice rounds are available for an extra cost if you purchase this gun. Email for more pictures. Buyer to arrange shipping. Interesting trades considered.
> 
> http://bluffutah.org/wp-content/gallery/muley-point/12911572-muley.jpg
Click to expand...

Gawd, you people are nuts.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Derideo_Te said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> N Koreans with Zero access to arms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two million N Koreans have access to firearms.
> 
> Obviously you are allergic to facts and incapable of doing anything but kneejerk emoting.
> 
> Since you have nothing of value to contribute to the OP your subsequent drivel will be treated with the contempt that it deserves.
> 
> Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

N. Korea enacts rules on regulating firearms | YONHAP NEWS

 Under the regulations, guns are allowed only for its "primary purposes" including executing official duties such as keeping guard and training.

  Institutions, businesses, groups and the public are prohibited from possessing or transacting firearms according to the law, which also banned lending, smuggling, destroying and self-producing firearms.



class dismissed.


----------



## Dante

Two Thumbs said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> N Koreans with Zero access to arms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two million N Koreans have access to firearms.
> 
> Obviously you are allergic to facts and incapable of doing anything but kneejerk emoting.
> 
> Since you have nothing of value to contribute to the OP your subsequent drivel will be treated with the contempt that it deserves.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> N. Korea enacts rules on regulating firearms | YONHAP NEWS
> 
> Under the regulations, guns are allowed only for its "primary purposes" including executing official duties such as keeping guard and training.
> 
> Institutions, businesses, groups and the public are prohibited from possessing or transacting firearms according to the law, which also banned lending, smuggling, destroying and self-producing firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> class dismissed.
Click to expand...

what is up with your signature? the closed quote tags? class dismissed, the Mossad is on the phone


----------



## Anathema

Sorry boys and girls but I do not accept the Constitutionality of ANY gun law in tgis coubtry and do my vest to avoid/ignore as many of them as possible.


----------



## westwall

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Polling"  Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,_
Click to expand...







So, how is a survey, that is based on VOLUNTARY polling data....science?

This should be all sorts of funny....


----------



## westwall

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> so move and stop being such a whiney f()ck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is FEDERAL Law.  It should trump ANY/ALL state laws restricting purchase and possession of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law as determined by the Federal courts, as is the case with the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> State laws that conform to Second Amendment jurisprudence are in fact Constitutional, including state laws that place restrictions on firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean all of those State laws that were recently ruled unconstitutional?  Those laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you agree with the Supreme Court having a say
Click to expand...




Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> so move and stop being such a whiney f()ck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is FEDERAL Law.  It should trump ANY/ALL state laws restricting purchase and possession of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law as determined by the Federal courts, as is the case with the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> State laws that conform to Second Amendment jurisprudence are in fact Constitutional, including state laws that place restrictions on firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean all of those State laws that were recently ruled unconstitutional?  Those laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you agree with the Supreme Court having a say
Click to expand...









When have I ever said SCOTUS was to be ignored?  Ignorance (sic) is YOUR schtick, junior.


----------



## westwall

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one is seriously trying to take all guns away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Government tells me I cannot purchase a specific model or type of firearm, or that I must acquire additional, costly licenses to do so, they have already taken those firearms away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> REally?
> 
> You cannot buy and own a cannon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Care to bet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WWII (1945 dated) Russian 45mm anti tank gun. Registered destructive device and *functional gun*. Can transfer on Form 4. Traverse and elevation wheels work, good bore, solid rubber tires. Breech ring has been repaired by welding. One 45mm brass piece and inert shell included. Also included is a 20mm vulcan sub-cal adapter. 20mm vulcan practice rounds are available for an extra cost if you purchase this gun. Email for more pictures. Buyer to arrange shipping. Interesting trades considered.
> 
> http://bluffutah.org/wp-content/gallery/muley-point/12911572-muley.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gawd, you people are nuts.
Click to expand...









Why?  Because we like things that you don't?  Because we can actually DO things with our hands?  Because we are creative in ways that your tiny little brain can not imagine?  Because we are self reliant and when the chips are down and the neighborhood is underwater the neighbors come to us while you sit curled up, quivering in a ball in the corner of your bedroom?

Face it dude.  You have nothing to offer.  You know NOTHING about the subject as I have repeatedly demonstrated.  You're a leech with a tiny imagination, and even tinier mind, and the mere thought that there are people out there who can actually do things just scares the shit out of you.

Too bad.  Grow up.


----------



## flacaltenn

I want a full out battleship. The kind that the Fed govt ENCOURAGED privateers to sail in the 18th and 19th century.. 12 cannon and 32knots ought to do..


----------



## flacaltenn

Dante said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me.. There's a big difference between political "science" and SCIENCE.
> Having the requisite ignorant bliss of science that liberal arts leftists often have -- that might not have occurred to you before you went off on the rant.
> 
> There's not a lot of physics or math or chemistry involved in lying with statistics. Which is the basis of most academic work in political or social "science"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So like others your argument isn't about science, it's about ideology.
Click to expand...


Say WHAAAT? The ideology of a College curriculum catalog?? Lots of things in there called sciences that really truely are not..


----------



## Dante

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Polling"  Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how is a survey, that is based on VOLUNTARY polling data....science?
> 
> This should be all sorts of funny....
Click to expand...

from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes

_So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._​


----------



## Dante

westwall said:


> When have I ever said SCOTUS was to be ignored?  Ignorance (sic) is YOUR schtick, junior.


Ignored? So does the Supreme Court get to decide and that is the end of it, unless an amendment process overrides them, or new legislation is passed and tested, or...

at some point all you wingers do is masturbate with words. The Supreme Court is the final word...on cases brought before the courts -- do you agree westwall ?


----------



## Dante

westwall said:


> Why?  Because we like things that you don't?  Because we can actually DO things with our hands?  Because we are creative in ways that your tiny little brain can not imagine?  Because we are self reliant and when the chips are down and the neighborhood is underwater the neighbors come to us while you sit curled up, quivering in a ball in the corner of your bedroom?
> 
> Face it dude.  You have nothing to offer.  You know NOTHING about the subject as I have repeatedly demonstrated.  You're a leech with a tiny imagination, and even tinier mind, and the mere thought that there are people out there who can actually do things just scares the shit out of you.
> 
> Too bad.  Grow up.



Grow up? You're the one who posts as if you were actually living on a poorly written tome written by nut job Ayn Rand


----------



## Dante

flacaltenn said:


> I want a full out battleship. The kind that the Fed govt ENCOURAGED privateers to sail in the 18th and 19th century.. 12 cannon and 32knots ought to do..


I want to be able to purchase and own a tactical nuke


----------



## Dante

flacaltenn said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me.. There's a big difference between political "science" and SCIENCE.
> Having the requisite ignorant bliss of science that liberal arts leftists often have -- that might not have occurred to you before you went off on the rant.
> 
> There's not a lot of physics or math or chemistry involved in lying with statistics. Which is the basis of most academic work in political or social "science"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So like others your argument isn't about science, it's about ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say WHAAAT? The ideology of a College curriculum catalog?? Lots of things in there called sciences that really truely are not..
Click to expand...

When people consistently attack others on an ideological level, offering the attack as proof that the other's opinions or links to opinions or statements cannot possible be truthful, credible or taken seriously -- you have what Dante has accused many here of -- Ideological in place of anything else including scientific argument. 

There is no denying that people who watch FOX News or consume a steady diet of other right wing media think alike on an ideological level and have begun a recent attack on the sciences


----------



## Iceweasel

Dante said:


> from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._​


Understanding the world in that context means understanding a particular opinion depending on how it was collected. If that's science to you I have some chicken feet to sell you for your next seance.


----------



## Dante

Iceweasel said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._​
> 
> 
> 
> Understanding the world in that context means understanding a particular opinion depending on how it was collected. If that's science to you I have some chicken feet to sell you for your next seance.
Click to expand...

you could never argue with the research behind it all because that would demand a level of critical thinking skills you sorely lack


----------



## Old Rocks

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> *
> How does the gun do that?
> 
> *There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)*
> 
> 
> A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
> How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?
> *
> Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
> *
> What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
> Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?
Click to expand...

*Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;*

19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.

In 2012, the _Guardian _published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."

The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the _Guardian, _compared to 11.5% in Australia.


----------



## Old Rocks

Andy Kiersz/Business Insider

*Now that is a significant reduction.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> *
> How does the gun do that?
> 
> *There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)*
> 
> 
> A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
> How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?
> *
> Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
> *
> What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
> Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;*
> 
> 19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results
> 
> In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.
> 
> In 2012, the _Guardian _published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."
> 
> The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the _Guardian, _compared to 11.5% in Australia.
Click to expand...


*Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;
*
There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.


----------



## Manonthestreet




----------



## Dante

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;
> *
> There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.


above is just one more in a long string of imbecilic posts

mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states


----------



## flacaltenn

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Polling"  Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how is a survey, that is based on VOLUNTARY polling data....science?
> 
> This should be all sorts of funny....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._​
Click to expand...


Again --- you jazz up this "poll" anyway you please. My objection is to your (and the authors)  hokey characterization of a poll as science. IT's not -- as Westwall remarked. FURTHERMORE --- this jerk flippantly EXCLUDED any scientists from the polling when he pruned out all the forensics, medical, psych, engineering folks from his sampling. *That's TRULY ODD isn't it Dante??  To exclude all the scientists in the field and yet dress this poll up as "science" ???? 
*
Knock your bad self out with a poll of pure academics publishing OPINION and playing loose with statistics. 
Just don't color it as "science"..


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> *
> How does the gun do that?
> 
> *There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)*
> 
> 
> A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
> How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?
> *
> Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
> *
> What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
> Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;*
> 
> 19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results
> 
> In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.
> 
> In 2012, the _Guardian _published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."
> 
> The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the _Guardian, _compared to 11.5% in Australia.
Click to expand...


I love that last line. It's the kind of thing that just sails thru the ears of a lefty..

60% of murders in US vs 11.5% of murders in Aussieland. Meaning that 88.5% of murderers DownUnder have found new and novel ways of killing people..


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> Andy Kiersz/Business Insider
> 
> *Now that is a significant reduction.*



Not only are 88.5% of murderers going back to machetes and crossbows --- but your graph belies the MOST IMPORTANT statistic. The ONLY one that really counts. The death toll from homicide...  Silly leftists. they get all distracted by the colors and shapes and don't really understand what issue they are trying to solve...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;
> *
> There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.
> 
> 
> 
> above is just one more in a long string of imbecilic posts
> 
> mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states
Click to expand...



*mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states
*
It's a shame when your local laws don't work. LOL!
Have the easier CCW laws over the last 20 years caused a spike in homicides?
Or are national laws the only ones that work in liberal imbecile world?
*
*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Andy Kiersz/Business Insider
> 
> *Now that is a significant reduction.*



226 gun deaths in 2012? Impossible!!!
Don't they know guns are banned?


----------



## flacaltenn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andy Kiersz/Business Insider
> 
> *Now that is a significant reduction.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 226 gun deaths in 2012? Impossible!!!
> Don't they know guns are banned?
Click to expand...


That probably includes a few terrorists who didn't get the message.
HEY -- good time to go with unarmed Bobbies on Bicycles. Seems safe enough down there.

There's another prob with Ole'Rocks chart there. The Lott chart on total Homicides gives it away. Must be slipping because I just noticed it. Those pretty red/blue numbers include suicides and accidents and probably police killings. Because the numbers are too damn high to be just homicides.

So now -- we're back to sucking car exhaust or carrying a freshly cut mackerel out to the beach hoping for a Great White shark to come by and take me to a better place.


----------



## Dante

flacaltenn said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Polling"  Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how is a survey, that is based on VOLUNTARY polling data....science?
> 
> This should be all sorts of funny....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again --- you jazz up this "poll" anyway you please. My objection is to your (and the authors)  hokey characterization of a poll as science. IT's not -- as Westwall remarked. FURTHERMORE --- this jerk flippantly EXCLUDED any scientists from the polling when he pruned out all the forensics, medical, psych, engineering folks from his sampling. *That's TRULY ODD isn't it Dante??  To exclude all the scientists in the field and yet dress this poll up as "science" ????
> *
> Knock your bad self out with a poll of pure academics publishing OPINION and playing loose with statistics.
> Just don't color it as "science"..
Click to expand...

When you speak to the author's motives you loose me. The author hid nothing and gave explanations for how and why he did what he did.

I guess your objection is one of ideology where you think any researcher who posits things about guns and gun culture you disagree with is a flaming leftist.

there are lots of folks like Dante who support the idea of licenses to carry and who agree or disagree with most proposed gun laws on the basis of it being good or bad law.

What Dante is against is extremists in the NRA kook squad


----------



## Dante

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;
> *
> There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.
> 
> 
> 
> above is just one more in a long string of imbecilic posts
> 
> mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states
> *
> It's a shame when your local laws don't work. LOL!
> Have the easier CCW laws over the last 20 years caused a spike in homicides?
> Or are national laws the only ones that work in liberal imbecile world?
Click to expand...

tough gun regulation in states that border neighboring states with loose or few gun laws

it;s ridiculous

We need a conversation on gun laws. Many cities and towns and some states should be able to regulate guns in a tougher manner than others, all within  a national framework.

Dante is not anti-gun ownership or anti concealed weapon permit


----------



## Derideo_Te

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> *
> How does the gun do that?
> 
> *There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)*
> 
> 
> A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
> How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?
> *
> Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
> *
> What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
> Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;*
> 
> 19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results
> 
> In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.
> 
> In 2012, the _Guardian _published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."
> 
> The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the _Guardian, _compared to 11.5% in Australia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;
> *
> There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.
Click to expand...


Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?


----------



## westwall

Dante said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Polling"  Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!
> 
> 
> 
> _survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how is a survey, that is based on VOLUNTARY polling data....science?
> 
> This should be all sorts of funny....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again --- you jazz up this "poll" anyway you please. My objection is to your (and the authors)  hokey characterization of a poll as science. IT's not -- as Westwall remarked. FURTHERMORE --- this jerk flippantly EXCLUDED any scientists from the polling when he pruned out all the forensics, medical, psych, engineering folks from his sampling. *That's TRULY ODD isn't it Dante??  To exclude all the scientists in the field and yet dress this poll up as "science" ????
> *
> Knock your bad self out with a poll of pure academics publishing OPINION and playing loose with statistics.
> Just don't color it as "science"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you speak to the author's motives you loose me. The author hid nothing and gave explanations for how and why he did what he did.
> 
> I guess your objection is one of ideology where you think any researcher who posits things about guns and gun culture you disagree with is a flaming leftist.
> 
> there are lots of folks like Dante who support the idea of licenses to carry and who agree or disagree with most proposed gun laws on the basis of it being good or bad law.
> 
> What Dante is against is extremists in the NRA kook squad
Click to expand...








Yes, I fear you have been lost your whole life.  As far as the authors motives go, they are a rather essential part of the whole mess don't you think?  Oh, right, you don't think.  I keep forgetting that.  You only parrot what your masters tell you to.  Regardless, the use of the word "scientific" with a popularity poll is humorous, but certainly not scientific.  Plus the 'consensus' part is a term of politics, not science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;
> *
> There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.
> 
> 
> 
> above is just one more in a long string of imbecilic posts
> 
> mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states
> *
> It's a shame when your local laws don't work. LOL!
> Have the easier CCW laws over the last 20 years caused a spike in homicides?
> Or are national laws the only ones that work in liberal imbecile world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tough gun regulation in states that border neighboring states with loose or few gun laws
> 
> it;s ridiculous
> 
> We need a conversation on gun laws. Many cities and towns and some states should be able to regulate guns in a tougher manner than others, all within  a national framework.
> 
> Dante is not anti-gun ownership or anti concealed weapon permit
Click to expand...

*
tough gun regulation in states that border neighboring states with loose or few gun laws
*
People broke those "tough gun regulations"?
Even in Australia?

*We need a conversation on gun laws.*

We had one.





* Many cities and towns and some states should be able to regulate guns in a tougher manner than others*

Chicago and DC tried that. It didn't work. And it violated the Constitution.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> *
> How does the gun do that?
> 
> *There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)*
> 
> 
> A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
> How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?
> *
> Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
> *
> What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
> Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;*
> 
> 19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results
> 
> In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.
> 
> In 2012, the _Guardian _published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."
> 
> The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the _Guardian, _compared to 11.5% in Australia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;
> *
> There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?
Click to expand...


Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> *
> How does the gun do that?
> 
> *There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)*
> 
> 
> A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
> How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?
> *
> Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
> *
> What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
> Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;*
> 
> 19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results
> 
> In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.
> 
> In 2012, the _Guardian _published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."
> 
> The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the _Guardian, _compared to 11.5% in Australia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;
> *
> There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?
> 
> Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?
Click to expand...


Onus is on you to prove that national gun laws are "unconstitutional".


----------



## westwall

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> *
> How does the gun do that?
> 
> *There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)*
> 
> 
> A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
> How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?
> *
> Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
> *
> What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
> Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?
> 
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;*
> 
> 19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results
> 
> In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.
> 
> In 2012, the _Guardian _published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."
> 
> The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the _Guardian, _compared to 11.5% in Australia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;
> *
> There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?
> 
> Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Onus is on you to prove that national gun laws are "unconstitutional".
Click to expand...







They already have been.  Or don't you follow the news?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> *
> How does the gun do that?
> 
> *There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)*
> 
> 
> A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
> How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?
> *
> Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
> *
> What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
> Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?
> 
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;*
> 
> 19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results
> 
> In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.
> 
> In 2012, the _Guardian _published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."
> 
> The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the _Guardian, _compared to 11.5% in Australia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;
> *
> There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?
> 
> Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Onus is on you to prove that national gun laws are "unconstitutional".
Click to expand...


State and local laws restricting CCW have been eliminated all over the country.
Even in Chicago and DC. Despite resistance by local politicians. Why?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;*
> 
> 19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results
> 
> In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.
> 
> In 2012, the _Guardian _published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."
> 
> The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the _Guardian, _compared to 11.5% in Australia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;
> *
> There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?
> 
> Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Onus is on you to prove that national gun laws are "unconstitutional".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State and local laws restricting CCW have been eliminated all over the country.
> Even in Chicago and DC. Despite resistance by local politicians. Why?
Click to expand...


Your failure to answer the question is duly noted and will be held against you in the future.

I recommend that you return to the OP topic since you are in danger of being accused of derailing the thread with your latest deflection.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;
> *
> There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?
> 
> Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Onus is on you to prove that national gun laws are "unconstitutional".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State and local laws restricting CCW have been eliminated all over the country.
> Even in Chicago and DC. Despite resistance by local politicians. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your failure to answer the question is duly noted and will be held against you in the future.
> 
> I recommend that you return to the OP topic since you are in danger of being accused of derailing the thread with your latest deflection.
Click to expand...


There, there, don't cry.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dante said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Polling"  Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!
> 
> 
> 
> _survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how is a survey, that is based on VOLUNTARY polling data....science?
> 
> This should be all sorts of funny....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again --- you jazz up this "poll" anyway you please. My objection is to your (and the authors)  hokey characterization of a poll as science. IT's not -- as Westwall remarked. FURTHERMORE --- this jerk flippantly EXCLUDED any scientists from the polling when he pruned out all the forensics, medical, psych, engineering folks from his sampling. *That's TRULY ODD isn't it Dante??  To exclude all the scientists in the field and yet dress this poll up as "science" ????
> *
> Knock your bad self out with a poll of pure academics publishing OPINION and playing loose with statistics.
> Just don't color it as "science"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you speak to the author's motives you loose me. The author hid nothing and gave explanations for how and why he did what he did.
> 
> I guess your objection is one of ideology where you think any researcher who posits things about guns and gun culture you disagree with is a flaming leftist.
> 
> there are lots of folks like Dante who support the idea of licenses to carry and who agree or disagree with most proposed gun laws on the basis of it being good or bad law.
> 
> What Dante is against is extremists in the NRA kook squad
Click to expand...


Don't know how I could lose you on something that obvious. The AUTHOR and you lept to the connection about "scientific consensus" on this polling excersize. It's all thru his remarks. Yet he decided to EXCLUDE every professional with a scientific sounding job from his poll.. How f-ing ridiculous is that? 

Maybe we could rig up one of those kid leashes so that I don't lose you over the obvious..


----------



## westwall

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;
> *
> There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?
> 
> Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Onus is on you to prove that national gun laws are "unconstitutional".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State and local laws restricting CCW have been eliminated all over the country.
> Even in Chicago and DC. Despite resistance by local politicians. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your failure to answer the question is duly noted and will be held against you in the future.
> 
> I recommend that you return to the OP topic since you are in danger of being accused of derailing the thread with your latest deflection.
Click to expand...







He ANSWERED the question.  Your inability to comprehend is duly noted and while it would be fun to hold it against you in the future that is against my principles as I don't abuse mentally handicapped people.


----------



## Zander

Anti gun nuts - please feel free to not own a gun. Nobody is forcing you or anyone else to own or (gasp!) use a gun.

The funniest thing is that gun grabbing scrawny necked leftists, metrosexual eunuchs, and assorted other wimps actually believe that not owning a gun makes them "safer".


----------



## Dante

westwall said:


> Yes, I fear you have been lost your whole life.  As far as the authors motives go, they are a rather essential part of the whole mess don't you think?  Oh, right, you don't think.  I keep forgetting that.  You only parrot what your masters tell you to.  Regardless, the use of the word "scientific" with a popularity poll is humorous, but certainly not scientific.  Plus the 'consensus' part is a term of politics, not science.


Stop it. The author clearly state what his motives are.. You add on motives out of the blue, or out of your uptight arse.

You cannot debate the authors points rationally because he is upfront and states the how and why of it all. So knowingly or unknowingly you end up looking like a big fat fool

All you can eat around the corner


----------



## westwall

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I fear you have been lost your whole life.  As far as the authors motives go, they are a rather essential part of the whole mess don't you think?  Oh, right, you don't think.  I keep forgetting that.  You only parrot what your masters tell you to.  Regardless, the use of the word "scientific" with a popularity poll is humorous, but certainly not scientific.  Plus the 'consensus' part is a term of politics, not science.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it. The author clearly state what his motives are.. You add on motives out of the blue, or out of your uptight arse.
> 
> You cannot debate the authors points rationally because he is upfront and states the how and why of it all. So knowingly or unknowingly you end up looking like a big fat fool
> 
> All you can eat around the corner
Click to expand...








His points, and his bias, are self evident.  One plus one still does equal two you know.


----------



## Dante

westwall said:


> His points, and his bias, are self evident.  One plus one still does equal two you know.


There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it

Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window)   published on firearms in  peer-reviewed scientific journals. 

He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."


After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.

One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.​So what is there to attack?

Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> His points, and his bias, are self evident.  One plus one still does equal two you know.
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window)   published on firearms in  peer-reviewed scientific journals.
> 
> He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."
> 
> 
> After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.
> 
> One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.
> 
> So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.​So what is there to attack?
> 
> Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda
Click to expand...


*Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.*

The 97% AGW fake statistic that lefties love so much made him think he could do the same for guns.


----------



## Conservative65

Derideo_Te said:


> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.



That gun haters don't like the 2nd amendment is their problem.  Tough shit if you don't.  I have GUNS and bet you don't have the guts to try to take a single one of them.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> His points, and his bias, are self evident.  One plus one still does equal two you know.
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window)   published on firearms in  peer-reviewed scientific journals.
> 
> He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."
> 
> 
> After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.
> 
> One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.
> 
> So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.​So what is there to attack?
> 
> Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda
Click to expand...







Just because one does a poll among scientists does not make it scientific it's simply a poll. If the poll is conducted over an issue that is political in nature and most likely has leading questions...

Hawthorne effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The very fact that a poll is being taken on the issue can skew the results dramatically. Especially if, like the global warming issue, the people taking the poll are afraid of possibly losing their jobs.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Dante

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> His points, and his bias, are self evident.  One plus one still does equal two you know.
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window)   published on firearms in  peer-reviewed scientific journals.
> 
> He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."
> 
> 
> After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.
> 
> One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.
> 
> So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.​So what is there to attack?
> 
> Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.*
> 
> The 97% AGW fake statistic that lefties love so much made him think he could do the same for guns.
Click to expand...

take your head out of your arse. that trick is now so old


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> His points, and his bias, are self evident.  One plus one still does equal two you know.
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window)   published on firearms in  peer-reviewed scientific journals.
> 
> He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."
> 
> 
> After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.
> 
> One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.
> 
> So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.​So what is there to attack?
> 
> Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.*
> 
> The 97% AGW fake statistic that lefties love so much made him think he could do the same for guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> take your head out of your arse. that trick is now so old
Click to expand...


Yeah, the fake poll is old.
Was this one better or worse than the 75/77 for AGW?


----------



## Dante

Conservative65 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That gun haters don't like the 2nd amendment is their problem.  Tough shit if you don't.  I have GUNS and bet you don't have the guts to try to take a single one of them.
Click to expand...

nobody is trying to take your guns tough guy.

careful you don't shoot yourself in a panic over the boogey man


----------



## Conservative65

Dante said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That gun haters don't like the 2nd amendment is their problem.  Tough shit if you don't.  I have GUNS and bet you don't have the guts to try to take a single one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody is trying to take your guns tough guy.
> 
> careful you don't shoot yourself in a panic over the boogey man
Click to expand...


I know you're not stupid enough to try.


----------



## Dante

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> His points, and his bias, are self evident.  One plus one still does equal two you know.
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window)   published on firearms in  peer-reviewed scientific journals.
> 
> He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."
> 
> 
> After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.
> 
> One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.
> 
> So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.​So what is there to attack?
> 
> Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.*
> 
> The 97% AGW fake statistic that lefties love so much made him think he could do the same for guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> take your head out of your arse. that trick is now so old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the fake poll is old.
> Was this one better or worse than the 75/77 for AGW?
Click to expand...

whatever are you ranting about now?

Go tell NASA and NOAA that your science says their science is wrong you big dufus


----------



## Weatherman2020

Dante said:


> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*


"Scientist" is a leftard buzzword to get you to turn off your brain. It's a self appointed title and there is no so thing as a scientist who thinks guns go around shooting people on their own.


----------



## Dante

Weatherman2020 said:


> "Scientist" is a leftard buzzword to get you to turn off your brain. It's a self appointed title and there is no so thing as a scientist who thinks guns go around shooting people on their own.


Uhm, no one said what you claim...so, I guess  --uhm, thanks for playing


----------



## Weatherman2020

Dante said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Scientist" is a leftard buzzword to get you to turn off your brain. It's a self appointed title and there is no so thing as a scientist who thinks guns go around shooting people on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, no one said what you claim...so, I guess  --uhm, thanks for playing
Click to expand...

Thinking a scientist is the best to understand humanity and evil says all we need to know.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Dante said:


> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*




There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late. 

People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> His points, and his bias, are self evident.  One plus one still does equal two you know.
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window)   published on firearms in  peer-reviewed scientific journals.
> 
> He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."
> 
> 
> After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.
> 
> One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.
> 
> So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.​So what is there to attack?
> 
> Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.*
> 
> The 97% AGW fake statistic that lefties love so much made him think he could do the same for guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> take your head out of your arse. that trick is now so old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the fake poll is old.
> Was this one better or worse than the 75/77 for AGW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever are you ranting about now?
> 
> Go tell NASA and NOAA that your science says their science is wrong you big dufus
Click to expand...


NASA and NOAA didn't create the 75/77 poll.


----------



## Dante

Toddsterpatriot said:


> NASA and NOAA didn't create the 75/77 poll.



are you having a one-way conversation with yourself?



again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> NASA and NOAA didn't create the 75/77 poll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you having a one-way conversation with yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> again?
Click to expand...


Just mocking morons who think a poll = science.
Or that 75/77 means there is a 97% consensus.
Again.


----------



## Dante

Delta4Embassy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.
> 
> People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.
Click to expand...

Huh?

When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Dante said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.
> 
> People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?
> 
> When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes
Click to expand...


Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available. 

In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.

Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.


----------



## Dante

Delta4Embassy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.
> 
> People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?
> 
> When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.
> 
> In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.
> 
> Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.

Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.

I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate


----------



## westwall

Dante said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.
> 
> People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?
> 
> When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.
> 
> In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.
> 
> Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.
> 
> Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.
> 
> I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate
Click to expand...









EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues.  Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't.  Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.

The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't.  Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like.  It should be difficult to take a persons rights away.  Very difficult.  But the tools need to be there to do so.  Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, _and_ not violating the rights of people they don't like.


----------



## Dante

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.
> 
> People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?
> 
> When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.
> 
> In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.
> 
> Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.
> 
> Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.
> 
> I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues.  Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't.  Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.
> 
> The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't.  Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like.  It should be difficult to take a persons rights away.  Very difficult.  But the tools need to be there to do so.  Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, _and_ not violating the rights of people they don't like.
Click to expand...

thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?

Oh right, your ideological myopia


----------



## westwall

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.
> 
> People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.
> 
> In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.
> 
> Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.
> 
> Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.
> 
> I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues.  Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't.  Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.
> 
> The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't.  Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like.  It should be difficult to take a persons rights away.  Very difficult.  But the tools need to be there to do so.  Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, _and_ not violating the rights of people they don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?
> 
> Oh right, your ideological myopia
Click to expand...







The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth.  The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.


----------



## Dante

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.
> 
> In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.
> 
> Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.
> 
> Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.
> 
> I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues.  Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't.  Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.
> 
> The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't.  Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like.  It should be difficult to take a persons rights away.  Very difficult.  But the tools need to be there to do so.  Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, _and_ not violating the rights of people they don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?
> 
> Oh right, your ideological myopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth.  The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.
Click to expand...

Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.

The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.

No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations.  but Look what we have in the Congress


----------



## Derideo_Te

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.
> 
> In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.
> 
> Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.
> 
> Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.
> 
> I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues.  Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't.  Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.
> 
> The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't.  Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like.  It should be difficult to take a persons rights away.  Very difficult.  But the tools need to be there to do so.  Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, _and_ not violating the rights of people they don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?
> 
> Oh right, your ideological myopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth.  The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.
> 
> The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.
> 
> No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations.  but Look what we have in the Congress
Click to expand...


Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.

Second Amendment

American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*Gun rights* – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". *However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.*[45][46][47]
Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.

Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.


----------



## Dante

Derideo_Te said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.
> 
> Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.
> 
> I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues.  Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't.  Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.
> 
> The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't.  Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like.  It should be difficult to take a persons rights away.  Very difficult.  But the tools need to be there to do so.  Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, _and_ not violating the rights of people they don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?
> 
> Oh right, your ideological myopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth.  The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.
> 
> The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.
> 
> No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations.  but Look what we have in the Congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.
> 
> Second Amendment
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Gun rights* – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". *However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.*[45][46][47]
> Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.
> 
> Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Click to expand...

Derideo_Te spanking westwall ?

What did Dante do to deserve this pleasure? Oh goddess allow me to make a grateful sacrifice


----------



## westwall

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.
> 
> In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.
> 
> Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.
> 
> Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.
> 
> I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues.  Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't.  Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.
> 
> The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't.  Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like.  It should be difficult to take a persons rights away.  Very difficult.  But the tools need to be there to do so.  Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, _and_ not violating the rights of people they don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?
> 
> Oh right, your ideological myopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth.  The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.
> 
> The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.
> 
> No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations.  but Look what we have in the Congress
Click to expand...






I am not referring to gun laws idiots.  i am referring to privacy and other laws that make it almost impossible for mentally deranged people to be caught before they go off the hook.  It is a very fine line between protecting the privacy rights of an individual and hiding them till they explode.  Color me unsurprised that you two mental midgets can't figure that out.


----------



## westwall

Derideo_Te said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.
> 
> Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.
> 
> I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues.  Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't.  Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.
> 
> The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't.  Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like.  It should be difficult to take a persons rights away.  Very difficult.  But the tools need to be there to do so.  Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, _and_ not violating the rights of people they don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?
> 
> Oh right, your ideological myopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth.  The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.
> 
> The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.
> 
> No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations.  but Look what we have in the Congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.
> 
> Second Amendment
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Gun rights* – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". *However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.*[45][46][47]
> Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.
> 
> Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Click to expand...







What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL.  Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective".  What a bunch of fucking morons.


----------



## Wry Catcher

RodISHI said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
Click to expand...


It maybe simple to simple minded people, not to anyone sagacious and panoptic.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues.  Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't.  Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.
> 
> The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't.  Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like.  It should be difficult to take a persons rights away.  Very difficult.  But the tools need to be there to do so.  Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, _and_ not violating the rights of people they don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?
> 
> Oh right, your ideological myopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth.  The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.
> 
> The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.
> 
> No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations.  but Look what we have in the Congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.
> 
> Second Amendment
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Gun rights* – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". *However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.*[45][46][47]
> Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.
> 
> Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL.  Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective".  What a bunch of fucking morons.
Click to expand...


How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.
> 
> People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.
> 
> In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.
> 
> Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.
> 
> Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.
> 
> I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues.  Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't.  Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.
> 
> The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't.  Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like.  It should be difficult to take a persons rights away.  Very difficult.  But the tools need to be there to do so.  Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, _and_ not violating the rights of people they don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?
> 
> Oh right, your ideological myopia
Click to expand...







Ever heard of HIPPA?

HHS.gov

Hard to get information passed to the correct authorities if an agency won't share that information with the authorities that need it.

We don't need new gun regulation laws.

We need a system that works to get the information where it needs to go.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Wry Catcher

Gun shop ordered to pay millions to injured police officers

And the NRA sure took heat from the Democratic Debate this evening.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?
> 
> Oh right, your ideological myopia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth.  The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.
> 
> The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.
> 
> No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations.  but Look what we have in the Congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.
> 
> Second Amendment
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Gun rights* – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". *However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.*[45][46][47]
> Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.
> 
> Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL.  Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective".  What a bunch of fucking morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?
Click to expand...








Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.


----------



## Muhammed

Derideo_Te said:


> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.




Could you please explain the reasoning that you used to come to those ridiculous conclusions so that I may tear it all to shreds and throw the pieces in your face?


----------



## Dante

westwall said:


> Dante: "_Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law. The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union. No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations.  but Look what we have in the Congress._"
> 
> I am not referring to gun laws idiots.  i am referring to privacy and other laws that make it almost impossible for mentally deranged people to be caught before they go off the hook.  It is a very fine line between protecting the privacy rights of an individual and hiding them till they explode.  Color me unsurprised that you two mental midgets can't figure that out.


Well there are gun laws idiots and there are gun fanatic idiots. You fall into one of those categories and mistaking assume Dante falls into the other. It is what Dante has been saying all along: Dante is not against the right to bear arms, concealed weapons permits, and a host of other issues you'd attempt to pigeon hole him into embracing.

What are YOU advocating, thought crime laws? Stripping away civil liberties and privacy rights? Shame on you. In your lashing out at any compromise position on gun laws you would shred the Bill of Rights keeping only the 2nd amendment.

The ACLU does not advocate hiding unstable individuals and the mentally ill from the state. 

go color yourself multiple shades of white


----------



## Dante

Wry Catcher said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Had a gun in the home when a rapist thought he would do something back in my early twenties. I have never seen a person move like he did when it finally got to the point it would be him and not me. Don't get a gun if you are afraid of them or do not know how or when to use it. It is really simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It maybe simple to simple minded people, not to anyone sagacious and panoptic.
Click to expand...

Sagacious, ok, But panoptic?   

and together?


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses *it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues*. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?
> 
> Oh right, your ideological myopia





Damaged Eagle said:


> Ever heard of HIPPA?
> 
> HHS.gov
> 
> Hard to get information passed to the correct authorities if an agency won't share that information with the authorities that need it.
> 
> We don't need new gun regulation laws.
> 
> We need a system that works to get the information where it needs to go.


Ever been tested on your reading and comprehension skill level?

gawd, usmb needs to do some house cleaning


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth.  The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.
> 
> The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.
> 
> No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations.  but Look what we have in the Congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.
> 
> Second Amendment
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Gun rights* – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". *However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.*[45][46][47]
> Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.
> 
> Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL.  Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective".  What a bunch of fucking morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
Click to expand...


The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.
> 
> The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.
> 
> No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations.  but Look what we have in the Congress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.
> 
> Second Amendment
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Gun rights* – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". *However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.*[45][46][47]
> Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.
> 
> Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL.  Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective".  What a bunch of fucking morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
Click to expand...








There is nothing 'vague' about the 2nd.   It takes serious dishonesty to claim that.  It is in fact one of the simplest, clearest, and least vague Amendments in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## westwall

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses *it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues*. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?
> 
> Oh right, your ideological myopia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of HIPPA?
> 
> HHS.gov
> 
> Hard to get information passed to the correct authorities if an agency won't share that information with the authorities that need it.
> 
> We don't need new gun regulation laws.
> 
> We need a system that works to get the information where it needs to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever been tested on your reading and comprehension skill level?
> 
> gawd, usmb needs to do some house cleaning
Click to expand...









I agree.  You need help considering you're responding to yourself!  DOH!


----------



## Dante

westwall said:


> There is nothing 'vague' about the 2nd.   It takes serious dishonesty to claim that.  It is in fact one of the simplest, clearest, and least vague Amendments in the Bill of Rights.


Maybe in your mind, but survey saaaaaaaaaaaaays!


----------



## westwall

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing 'vague' about the 2nd.   It takes serious dishonesty to claim that.  It is in fact one of the simplest, clearest, and least vague Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your mind, but survey saaaaaaaaaaaaays!
Click to expand...







I know this will surprise you but I can rig a survey to say anything I want it to.  Surveys of that kind are useless as they are biased from the very get go.


----------



## Dante

westwall said:


> I know this will surprise you but I can rig a survey to say anything I want it to.  Surveys of that kind are useless as they are biased from the very get go.



no need to rig a survey saying you're out to lunch. How and why you've become so prone to conspiracy theories is an interesting subject..for another time


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses *it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues*. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?
> 
> Oh right, your ideological myopia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of HIPPA?
> 
> HHS.gov
> 
> Hard to get information passed to the correct authorities if an agency won't share that information with the authorities that need it.
> 
> We don't need new gun regulation laws.
> 
> We need a system that works to get the information where it needs to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever been tested on your reading and comprehension skill level?
> 
> gawd, usmb needs to do some house cleaning
Click to expand...






You didn't have to reply to yourself for everyone to know that.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Rigby5

By the way, what is pronounced HIPPA, is actually spelled HIPAA.

There is no possible scientific survey one can conduct on gun control because there is no way create a control group and do experimentation to collect statistics.
In fact, there is no way to even standardize what is considered a positive result.
For example, if you just consider murder rates, then  not only would you find gun control is wonderful, but you would find the preventive detention is even better.

Obviously the world has dangers, and historically weapons are necessary.
Those who think that it is the police who should supply those weapons, are idiots.
Police not only have way too long of a response time, but police/government/military corruption is one of the main reasons we had to commit an armed rebellion from Gt. Britain.
Human history is full of monarchies and feudalism, and if you look as why they started to change into democratic republics around 1500, it was due to the mass production of firearms that leveled the playing field of the general population, against the evil thugs of the dictators.
So anyone who is for gun control, is actually just wanting to revert back to the dictatorships of before 1500.


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*


The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.


----------



## bripat9643

Derideo_Te said:


> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.




There isn't a single fact in that spew.  Opinions are not facts.   Get that through your fucking head.


----------



## bripat9643

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.
> 
> The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.
> 
> No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations.  but Look what we have in the Congress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.
> 
> Second Amendment
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Gun rights* – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". *However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.*[45][46][47]
> Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.
> 
> Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL.  Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective".  What a bunch of fucking morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
Click to expand...

Where does the preamble mention democracy?


----------



## bripat9643

westwall said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues.  Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't.  Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.
> 
> The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't.  Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like.  It should be difficult to take a persons rights away.  Very difficult.  But the tools need to be there to do so.  Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, _and_ not violating the rights of people they don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> thanks to he ACLU?  Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?
> 
> Oh right, your ideological myopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth.  The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.
> 
> The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.
> 
> No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations.  but Look what we have in the Congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.
> 
> Second Amendment
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Gun rights* – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". *However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.*[45][46][47]
> Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.
> 
> Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL.  Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective".  What a bunch of fucking morons.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many times you point that out, they will still pretend not to get it.


----------



## bripat9643

Wry Catcher said:


> Gun shop ordered to pay millions to injured police officers
> 
> And the NRA sure took heat from the Democratic Debate this evening.




*Page Not Found*


----------



## Vastator

Dante said:


> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*


Work from the top, down. Disarm the police, and military (our employees) first. Then we'll talk...


----------



## miketx

Scientific concensus = Voodoo witch hunt.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...


Consensus once said the world was flat.


----------



## Wry Catcher

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.
> 
> Second Amendment
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Gun rights* – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". *However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.*[45][46][47]
> Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.
> 
> Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL.  Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective".  What a bunch of fucking morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
Click to expand...


Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Wry Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL.  Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective".  What a bunch of fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country
Click to expand...


Mein Gott!  

The phrase suggests only that the signatories to the document are speaking collectively as they did previously on matters of abuse, liberty and a break with England.  The phrase has nothing to do with democracy.


----------



## bripat9643

Wry Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL.  Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective".  What a bunch of fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.
Click to expand...

It does nothing of the sort.  We know douchebag morons like you infer it.  However, there is no rational justification for such an inference.  People like me interpret documents based on what they actually say, not based on all our prejudices and fantasies.


----------



## Frannie

Dante said:


> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*


There is a scientific conpnsus on knives too, and on rocks so you want rocks banned

Only 6 year olds use the word sci conpenses

You are a religious fool


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL.  Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective".  What a bunch of fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.
Click to expand...






And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.


----------



## miketx

Billy_Kinetta said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consensus once said the world was flat.
Click to expand...

That consensus was brought about by the brightest and best minds science has to offer! Much like this was:


----------



## Rigby5

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...


Not exactly.
The word "oxymoron" means the phrase uses conflicting descriptors, like "jumbo shrimp" or "pretty ugly".
It is not unreasonable for someone to want a scientific consensus.
The problem is that the consensus that Dante is creating, is not at all "scientific".
First of all you can't use polling and be scientific, and second is that you can only use scientific experts in the fields of crime.
Someone with medical experience in treating gunshot wounds for example, would have absolutely ZERO scientific experience in the causes or conditions of gun violence.
You don't want experts in guns, but in violence.
What you would want to do is determine what is causing the increase, and what the best way to diminish it is, that actually fixes things instead of just suppressing symptoms.
And there is nothing like that provided.


----------



## Rigby5

bripat9643 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't a single fact in that spew.  Opinions are not facts.   Get that through your fucking head.
Click to expand...



Agreed.
Correlation is NOT an indication of causation.
For example, homes with guns could experience much more violence because homes with guns are in neighborhoods that ARE already much more violent, so then need the guns.
There is no way to indicate that having the gun caused the violence at all.

And the claim that guns are NOT used for self defense more than they are used for crime is proven a lie.
Even the DOJ admits guns prevent over 2.5 million violent crimes each year.
The fact statistics claiming otherwise try to imply you have no prevented a crime unless you have shot and killed the criminal, and that is almost never the case.


----------



## Rigby5

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.
> 
> Second Amendment
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Gun rights* – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". *However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.*[45][46][47]
> Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.
> 
> Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL.  Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective".  What a bunch of fucking morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
Click to expand...


It does not at all matter if "we the people" is collective or individual, because the result is the same, which is a total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights.  It is all restrictions on federal jurisdiction, and nothing else.  So regardless of the motive for the 2nd amendment, the result is the same, which is that any and all federal weapons laws are entirely and completely illegal.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Dante said:


> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Derideo_Te said:


> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Rigby5 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL.  Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective".  What a bunch of fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not at all matter if "we the people" is collective or individual, because the result is the same, which is a total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights.  It is all restrictions on federal jurisdiction, and nothing else.  So regardless of the motive for the 2nd amendment, the result is the same, which is that any and all federal weapons laws are entirely and completely illegal.
Click to expand...


*COOL, Why not prove your assertion, find a surface to air missile, and go to the nearest international airport, and when you are supine with guns drawn by LE, tell them what you wrote here.*


----------



## miketx

Wry Catcher said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not at all matter if "we the people" is collective or individual, because the result is the same, which is a total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights.  It is all restrictions on federal jurisdiction, and nothing else.  So regardless of the motive for the 2nd amendment, the result is the same, which is that any and all federal weapons laws are entirely and completely illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *COOL, Why not prove your assertion, find a surface to air missile, and go to the nearest international airport, and when you are supine with guns drawn by LE, tell them what you wrote here.*
Click to expand...

Loving crime so much must take lots of your time.


----------



## bripat9643

Rigby5 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home *increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide *(72% agree, 11% disagree) and that
> 
> *a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place *to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that
> 
> *guns are not used in self-defense* far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to
> 
> *more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates* (62% vs. 9%).
> 
> Finally, there is *consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide* (71% vs. 12%).
> 
> Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't a single fact in that spew.  Opinions are not facts.   Get that through your fucking head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> Correlation is NOT an indication of causation.
> For example, homes with guns could experience much more violence because homes with guns are in neighborhoods that ARE already much more violent, so then need the guns.
> There is no way to indicate that having the gun caused the violence at all.
> 
> And the claim that guns are NOT used for self defense more than they are used for crime is proven a lie.
> Even the DOJ admits guns prevent over 2.5 million violent crimes each year.
> The fact statistics claiming otherwise try to imply you have no prevented a crime unless you have shot and killed the criminal, and that is almost never the case.
Click to expand...

It's a poll of nothing more than opinions.   Opinions don't become facts because someone takes a poll of them.


----------



## boedicca

I'll file this with the scientific consensus that the earth was flat.


----------



## bripat9643

Rigby5 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There&apos;s scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won&apos;t like it
> 
> Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> _So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> 
> My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
> 
> Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not._
> ​*Let the denial begin...*
> 
> 
> 
> The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly.
> The word "oxymoron" means the phrase uses conflicting descriptors, like "jumbo shrimp" or "pretty ugly".
> It is not unreasonable for someone to want a scientific consensus.
> The problem is that the consensus that Dante is creating, is not at all "scientific".
> First of all you can't use polling and be scientific, and second is that you can only use scientific experts in the fields of crime.
> Someone with medical experience in treating gunshot wounds for example, would have absolutely ZERO scientific experience in the causes or conditions of gun violence.
> You don't want experts in guns, but in violence.
> What you would want to do is determine what is causing the increase, and what the best way to diminish it is, that actually fixes things instead of just suppressing symptoms.
> And there is nothing like that provided.
Click to expand...

"Consensus" isn't scientific.  It's political.  The descriptors do conflict.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.
Click to expand...


Why do you always leave a large blank space before you begin to write?  My best guess is you consult the blank space between your ears, and post what you learned there.


----------



## miketx

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you always leave a large blank space before you begin to write?  My best guess is you consult the blank space between your ears, and post what you learned there.
Click to expand...

A blank space can only improve your posts.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble?  As an individual or the collective?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.
Click to expand...


Members of mobs are individuals, are they not?  Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you always leave a large blank space before you begin to write?  My best guess is you consult the blank space between your ears, and post what you learned there.
Click to expand...







Ooooh, was that supposed to hurt?  No, junior, it's an artifice of posting from my phone.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning.  Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Members of mobs are individuals, are they not?  Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.
Click to expand...







No, they are not.  Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over.  Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.

That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.
> 
> Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous.  In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later.  All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.
> 
> Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Members of mobs are individuals, are they not?  Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over.  Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.
> 
> That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.
Click to expand...


Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell?  Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob?  How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?

Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Members of mobs are individuals, are they not?  Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over.  Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.
> 
> That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell?  Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob?  How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?
> 
> Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?
Click to expand...


Right off the top of my head?  The Paul Wellstone Memorial.  They basically drove Republicans out of the hall in what was supposed to be a non-partisan event.  That was at the very beginning of their total unmasking.


----------



## peach174

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Members of mobs are individuals, are they not?  Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over.  Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.
> 
> That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell?  Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob?  How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?
> 
> Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?
Click to expand...



She broke the law.
*The Federal Records Act* requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.

The other is political and has not been completed yet.

Neither example is a mob.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the preamble mention democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Members of mobs are individuals, are they not?  Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over.  Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.
> 
> That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell?  Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob?  How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?
> 
> Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?
Click to expand...






Does the fact that they were not trying to incite violence, as your heroes antifart do, mean anything to your tiny little brain?

For someone who claims an advanced degree your arguments are remarkably infantile.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Members of mobs are individuals, are they not?  Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over.  Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.
> 
> That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell?  Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob?  How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?
> 
> Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right off the top of my head?  The Paul Wellstone Memorial.  They basically drove Republicans out of the hall in what was supposed to be a non-partisan event.  That was at the very beginning of their total unmasking.
Click to expand...


Did they chant, "go back to where you came from", in unison?  I guess not, the top of your head wasn't sufficient; next time have some evidence = to a trump rally.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid question ^^^.  Not surprising, given the poster.
> 
> "We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Members of mobs are individuals, are they not?  Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over.  Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.
> 
> That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell?  Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob?  How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?
> 
> Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that they were not trying to incite violence, as your heroes antifart do, mean anything to your tiny little brain?
> 
> For someone who claims an advanced degree your arguments are remarkably infantile.
Click to expand...


At times I do talk down to those who lack cogitation.  Childish you suggest?  How mature is "antifart"?  

In fact I find both sides anathema.  I support debate, not shit tossing.  But when faced with someone like you, I won't lie and admit I throw shit right back at you.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Members of mobs are individuals, are they not?  Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over.  Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.
> 
> That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell?  Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob?  How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?
> 
> Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that they were not trying to incite violence, as your heroes antifart do, mean anything to your tiny little brain?
> 
> For someone who claims an advanced degree your arguments are remarkably infantile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At times I do talk down to those who lack cogitation.  Childish you suggest?  How mature is "antifart"?
> 
> In fact I find both sides anathema.  I support debate, not shit tossing.  But when faced with someone like you, I won't lie and admit I throw shit right back at you.
Click to expand...


Problem is you never debate but demand everyone agree with your opinion on the subject and refuse to agree to disagree...


----------



## Wry Catcher

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Members of mobs are individuals, are they not?  Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over.  Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.
> 
> That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell?  Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob?  How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?
> 
> Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that they were not trying to incite violence, as your heroes antifart do, mean anything to your tiny little brain?
> 
> For someone who claims an advanced degree your arguments are remarkably infantile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At times I do talk down to those who lack cogitation.  Childish you suggest?  How mature is "antifart"?
> 
> In fact I find both sides anathema.  I support debate, not shit tossing.  But when faced with someone like you, I won't lie and admit I throw shit right back at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is you never debate but demand everyone agree with your opinion on the subject and refuse to agree to disagree...
Click to expand...


Oh BULLSHIT.  Am I supposed to respond to you, "we can agree to disagree" when you attack my character?  Maybe you ought to read the posts above by WESTWALL and me without your biases.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual.  Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Members of mobs are individuals, are they not?  Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over.  Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.
> 
> That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell?  Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob?  How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?
> 
> Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that they were not trying to incite violence, as your heroes antifart do, mean anything to your tiny little brain?
> 
> For someone who claims an advanced degree your arguments are remarkably infantile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At times I do talk down to those who lack cogitation.  Childish you suggest?  How mature is "antifart"?
> 
> In fact I find both sides anathema.  I support debate, not shit tossing.  But when faced with someone like you, I won't lie and admit I throw shit right back at you.
Click to expand...





The problem is you have always just thrown poo.  I'll make a deal With you, if you really want to have a legit debate I am happy to engage with you in a respectful manner. 

I require the same courtesy. 

What say you.


----------

