# Gun control works….two 13 year old boys shot in Britain.  You know, where guns were banned and confiscated.



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

The anti-gun extremists try to compare the U.S.  to Britain when it comes to gun crime…..what they fail to realize is that Europe was set back decades because of the World War they started, which allowed the socialists to murder 12 million people, outside of those killed by the war…and the massive destruction to their societies…..

Now, as their social welfare states have finally reached peak damage to their family and societal structure….their young men are turning to crime and violence…….


*A pair of 13-year-old schoolboys survived being shot after they were rushed to hospital.*
*
The children were gunned down just before 10.05pm last night outside some garages in Norton, Stoke-on-Trent*.
—————
*Usually criminals in the UK use pistols, revolvers or shotguns, as opposed to fully automatic weapons. *

*Most shootings in the country are carried out by street gangs involved in armed robberies or drug dealing*.









						Two schoolboys, 13, rushed to hospital after they were shot
					

Both of them survived and neither of them have life-threatening or life-changing injuries.




					metro.co.uk


----------



## surada (Oct 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The anti-gun extremists try to compare the U.S.  to Britain when it comes to gun crime…..what they fail to realize is that Europe was set back decades because of the World War they started, which allowed the socialists to murder 12 million people, outside of those killed by the war…and the massive destruction to their societies…..
> 
> Now, as their social welfare states have finally reached peak damage to their family and societal structure….their young men are turning to crime and violence…….
> 
> ...



Oh my.. You still think Hitler was a socialist.


----------



## pknopp (Oct 30, 2021)

Every time guns and the U.K comes up the lies come out that guns are banned there. Why is that? (rhetorical question)


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Every time guns and the U.K comes up the lies come out that guns are banned there. Why is that? (rhetorical question)



Can the average citizen in Britain own and carry a handgun?   Can they own a rifle or shotgun without keeping it at a gun club?  Can they keep a rifle in a caliber larger than .22 at home?

A “no” answer to any of these questions is all the answer a free people need to know….


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

surada said:


> Oh my.. You still think Hitler was a socialist.



I know hitler was a socialist.  That you do not know this is the problem with people like you……


----------



## surada (Oct 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Can the average citizen in Britain own and carry a handgun?   Can they own a rifle or shotgun without keeping it at a gun club?  Can they keep a rifle in a caliber larger than .22 at home?
> 
> A “no” answer to any of these questions is all the answer a free people need to know….



Why don't you read the laws?

Gun control and ownership laws in the UK - BBC News








						Gun control and ownership laws in the UK
					

The UK has some the toughest gun control laws in the world but are there areas left that could be further tightened?



					www.bbc.com
				



Nov 02, 2010 · The system is administered by police forces in each part of the UK and in England, Scotland and Wales there are separate licences for shotguns and for other firearms. …


Gun laws - what responsible UK shooters need to know








						Gun laws - every responsible shooter must know them
					

Gun laws change frequently and legislation is different between England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Here's our section on the subject.




					www.shootinguk.co.uk
				



Feb 27, 2020 · 16 gun laws every responsible shooter needs to know. If you own a shotgun or rifle then you must have a valid shotgun or firearms certificate. It is against the law to make an untrue statement when you apply for or renew a shotgun or firearms certificate. Do not withold details of past or ‘spent’ convictions or you may be prosecuted. You will need to give details of any previous convictions, …


----------



## surada (Oct 30, 2021)

Gun laws in the UK.



			https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518193/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_April_2016_v20.pdf


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Oct 30, 2021)

You're more likely to get shot in Sweden than you are in the UK.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

surada said:


> Why don't you read the laws?
> 
> Gun control and ownership laws in the UK - BBC News
> 
> ...



Yeah….riddle me this batman…

Can a British woman carry and use a handgun to stop a violent criminal from torturing, raping and killing her?   Can a store owner in London stand in front of his store with a rifle to keep blm and other leftists from burning and looting their stores?

When the British government makes it impossible for normal people to access guns they have essentially banned them.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You're more likely to get shot in Sweden than you are in the UK.



Yep and the weapons they use are fully automatic military rifles and grenades, both of which are illegal in all of Europe, Britain and Sweden.


----------



## surada (Oct 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yeah….riddle me this batman…
> 
> Can a British woman carry and use a handgun to stop a violent criminal from torturing, raping and killing her?   Can a store owner in London stand in front of his store with a rifle to keep blm and other leftists from burning and looting their stores?
> 
> When the British government makes it impossible for normal people to access guns they have essentially banned them.



Read the law .. I am not in the UK.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

surada said:


> Read the law .. I am not in the UK.


 
So……you wont answer the questions….


----------



## surada (Oct 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yeah….riddle me this batman…
> 
> Can a British woman carry and use a handgun to stop a violent criminal from torturing, raping and killing her?   Can a store owner in London stand in front of his store with a rifle to keep blm and other leftists from burning and looting their stores?
> 
> When the British government makes it impossible for normal people to access guns they have essentially banned them.



I have never been one to stay out late or frequent dangerous places and ghettos or go out unescorted at night.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Oct 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Can the average citizen in Britain own and carry a handgun? Can they own a rifle or shotgun without keeping it at a gun club? Can they keep a rifle in a caliber larger than .22 at home?


Yes, yes, yes. Next?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Yes, yes, yes. Next?



wow, now you are just lying……


----------



## pknopp (Oct 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Can the average citizen in Britain own and carry a handgun?   Can they own a rifle or shotgun without keeping it at a gun club?  Can they keep a rifle in a caliber larger than .22 at home?
> 
> A “no” answer to any of these questions is all the answer a free people need to know….



_
For firearms other than a shotgun, applicants must give police a "good reason" for wanting to own one. Hunting or being a member of a shooting club, for example, might be seen as good reasons. Self-defence won't be considered a valid reason.

Semiautomatic firearms — guns that will keep firing one round every time you pull the trigger — are legal as long as the size of the cartridge they are designed to fire are no bigger than .22 inches in diameter.

Shotguns are legal at long as they can't hold more than three shotgun shells – including the one in the chamber if it's a pump-action or semiautomatic shotgun. There's no such restriction for rifles.
_

Take a look at the guns you can legally buy in the UK

 The argument was that guns were banned and confiscated when the facts are they simply have restrictions. 

 But back to my original rhetorical question.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Oct 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Can a British woman carry and use a handgun to stop a violent criminal from torturing, raping and killing her?


No, but she can use other non-lethal weapons or devices against an attacker. Fortunately there aren't that many violent serial rapists about in the UK, unlike the USA, it seems.


2aguy said:


> Can a store owner in London stand in front of his store with a rifle to keep blm and other leftists from burning and looting their stores?


No. That's the job of the police in a civilised society, clearly the USA still has some way to go in that respect.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Oct 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> wow, now you are just lying……


Oh, dear. You are projecting again, probably out of ignorance, but that's nothing new for you.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 30, 2021)

That gun violence in other nations can be itemized is a sure sign that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No, but she can use other non-lethal weapons or devices against an attacker. Fortunately there aren't that many violent serial rapists about in the UK, unlike the USA, it seems.
> 
> No. That's the job of the police in a civilised society, clearly the USA still has some way to go in that respect.



Non-lethal?  Anything that harms an attacker is also forbidden in Britain.

She could use a whistle….

Yes….explain to the woman gang raped in the London Park that the Bobbies are there to protect her…..except they were not there and she was brutally gang raped.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No, but she can use other non-lethal weapons or devices against an attacker. Fortunately there aren't that many violent serial rapists about in the UK, unlike the USA, it seems.
> 
> No. That's the job of the police in a civilised society, clearly the USA still has some way to go in that respect.



Our leftists have launched a war
On police in the cities they control…..your leftists are just warming up…. The accusations of racism against British police are beginning and will cripple them the same way our police have been crippled by false claims of racism


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

candycorn said:


> That gun violence in other nations can be itemized is a sure sign that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.



aThat you think their levels of gun crime will remain static is cute.   The British police already admit they cant stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into the country and the immigrant drug gangs are using them more and more for intimidation and killing.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

pknopp said:


> _For firearms other than a shotgun, applicants must give police a "good reason" for wanting to own one. Hunting or being a member of a shooting club, for example, might be seen as good reasons. Self-defence won't be considered a valid reason.
> 
> Semiautomatic firearms — guns that will keep firing one round every time you pull the trigger — are legal as long as the size of the cartridge they are designed to fire are no bigger than .22 inches in diameter.
> 
> ...



What a crock of crap……handguns are
banned and just try to prove good cause…..

Mexico also allows gun ownership….they have one gun store, and it is in a military base…..and if you arent rich and politically commected you cant get
A gun…

But Mexico allows gun ownership…..they just regulate it.


Keep selling the lie that British citizens can get guns….. the rich and noble class on their estates will actually believe you


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

pknopp said:


> _For firearms other than a shotgun, applicants must give police a "good reason" for wanting to own one. Hunting or being a member of a shooting club, for example, might be seen as good reasons. Self-defence won't be considered a valid reason.
> 
> Semiautomatic firearms — guns that will keep firing one round every time you pull the trigger — are legal as long as the size of the cartridge they are designed to fire are no bigger than .22 inches in diameter.
> 
> ...



Yes……stopping a rape, beating, stabbing, robbery or murder is not a “good reason”.  but hunting quail on your country estate is…..

Do you understand how really stupid that is?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No, but she can use other non-lethal weapons or devices against an attacker. Fortunately there aren't that many violent serial rapists about in the UK, unlike the USA, it seems.
> 
> No. That's the job of the police in a civilised society, clearly the USA still has some way to go in that respect.



You really are dumb….


*Carrying an offensive weapon in the UK is taken very seriously by our police and our court judges – so much so that most “weapons” are considered as illegal to carry.
Likewise, UK laws regarding self defence are quite strict for any member of the general public.*

*This, in turn, means most forms of self defence are practically non existent and extremely limited in the UK, most would say too limited, with not enough protection available for the average UK citizen...*











						Whats the alternative to Legal Pepper Spray for fhe UK?
					

Safehaus Criminal Indentifer is the alternative legal pepper spray for the UK. Self defence spray marking the attacker. Review Video and Test




					www.ukpreppersguide.co.uk
				




Soooo…just submit to the rape….the beating……the stabbing….. the murder…..if you do anything aggressive against the violent criminal you will be hauled off to the local jail….


----------



## pknopp (Oct 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yes……stopping a rape, beating, stabbing, robbery or murder is not a “good reason”.  but hunting quail on your country estate is…..
> 
> Do you understand how really stupid that is?



 Sure but irrelevant to my point. One does not have to post lies to defend our 2nd Amendment.

 If someone started a thread that argued it was stupid to not allow people to arm themselves for self defense, I would agree but that isnt what happened.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Oct 30, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Every time guns and the U.K comes up the lies come out that guns are banned there. Why is that? (rhetorical question)


Because 2aguy is a retarded ****.

The retard believes that as soon as you legislate against something, it stops. For example, seat belts are mandatory, so deaths have stopped during crashes.

He's a gun nut, thick as the driven snow.


----------



## Flash (Oct 30, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You're more likely to get shot in Sweden than you are in the UK.


If we ship those other countries our fucking Negroes their crime rate would soar.

White America has a lower crime rate than most of Europe or Scandinavia.

It is the Negroes in Democrat controlled big city shitholes that commit most of the gun crime in the US.

If we shipped them all back to Africa we would have very low gun crime and whatever country in Africa they went to would be the gun crime capital of the world.

We tell you about this every time you spew your anti Constitutional bullshit but you being a dumbass uneducated Moon Bat don't want to accept reality.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Because 2aguy is a retarded ****.
> 
> The retard believes that as soon as you legislate against something, it stops. For example, seat belts are mandatory, so deaths have stopped during crashes.
> 
> He's a gun nut, thick as the driven snow.



No,dipshit…that is what you morons believe…..since you target normal gun owners, who don’t use their guns for crime….and then keep releasing the actual violent gun offender and then expect gun crime to go down.


Normal people owning guns does not increase gun crime or gun violence…..so making laws that attack them is just the height of fucking stupidity…..

Over 27 years Americans increased gun ownership and carrying guns in public…the gun murder rate went down 49% the gun crime rate went down 75%….showing that you are an idiot.

Then, in 2015….you and the democrat party decided to attack the police and to increase the number of violent criminals you keep releasing from jail and prison….

You and the democrats cause our gun crime problems.  You, not guns, you idiot.


----------



## surada (Oct 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Our leftists have launched a war
> On police in the cities they control…..your leftists are just warming up…. The accusations of racism against British police are beginning and will cripple them the same way our police have been crippled by false claims of racism



So you are an expert on the UK?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 30, 2021)

That is a *tragedy*.  But gun homicide and suicide is much rarer in UK then USA.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Oct 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No,dipshit…that is what you morons believe…..since you target normal gun owners, who don’t use their guns for crime….and then keep releasing the actual violent gun offender and then expect gun crime to go down.
> 
> 
> Normal people owning guns does not increase gun crime or gun violence…..so making laws that attack them is just the height of fucking stupidity…..
> ...


I'm UK conservative, dummy


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

surada said:


> So you are an expert on the UK?



Nope…..I just understand human history and human nature.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> wow, now you are just lying……


No, I leave that to you. 

Here, educate yourself: Take a look at the guns you can legally buy in the UK 

To date, you still can. I know of one member of our own NRA who owns and shoots a Barrett .50cal at Bisley


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Non-lethal?  Anything that harms an attacker is also forbidden in Britain.
> 
> She could use a whistle….
> 
> Yes….explain to the woman gang raped in the London Park that the Bobbies are there to protect her…..except they were not there and she was brutally gang raped.


More drivel. We have the right to defend ourselves in propotion to the level of aggression faced, aka "reasonable force". You can harm an attacker up to a certain point. Marker Sprays and directional sonic weapons (rape alarms) are quite acceptable and generally very effective, as your own article states.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 1, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> I'm UK conservative, dummy


..and I'm a UK Socialist. At least this is one thing we can agree on.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 1, 2021)

candycorn said:


> That gun violence in other nations can be itemized is a sure sign that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.


What are they doing right?
How do you know?


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 1, 2021)

Like how heroin was made illegal,  and everyone stopped selling and using it!!!!!!!


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 1, 2021)

surada said:


> Oh my.. You still think Hitler was a socialist.


He was...lol.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 1, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Every time guns and the U.K comes up the lies come out that guns are banned there. Why is that? (rhetorical question)


Handguns have been banned in England.  Its been that way sense 97.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> I know hitler was a socialist.  That you do not know this is the problem with people like you……


No he was not.   Why do you lie so glibly?


----------



## pknopp (Nov 1, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Handguns have been banned in England.  Its been that way sense 97.



 No one argued otherwise.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 1, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> More drivel. We have the right to defend ourselves in propotion to the level of aggression faced, aka "reasonable force". You can harm an attacker up to a certain point. Marker Sprays and directional sonic weapons (rape alarms) are quite acceptable and generally very effective, as your own article states.




They are not effective....the bias of the British journalist pushing the myth that they work is just funny..


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 1, 2021)

bodecea said:


> No he was not.   Why do you lie so glibly?




He was...fascism is one type of socialism.......that you guys know that all forms of socialism since 1917 haver resulted in the murder of close to 200 million innocent men, women and children makes you really want to pretend hitler wasn't a socialist..since his crimes are the only ones that seem to attract attention....


----------



## Captain Caveman (Nov 1, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> What are they doing right? How do you know?



Taking guns seriously.

How do I know? Results.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Nov 1, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> Like how heroin was made illegal,  and everyone stopped selling and using it!!!!!!!


Everyone didn't sell heroin in the first place.

Anyone with more than two brain cells understands that legislation/regulation on anything reduces and doesn't eliminate.

That's why your brain is foggy with the subject !


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 1, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Taking guns seriously.


Ah.  You cannot cite specifics.  No surprise.


Captain Caveman said:


> How do I know? Results.


Fallacy:  _Post hoc ergo propter hoc._


----------



## Captain Caveman (Nov 1, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah.  You cannot cite specifics.  No surprise.
> 
> Fallacy:  _Post hoc ergo propter hoc._


If you have more guns and a deadlier range of guns per capita, the greater the casualties. It's not fucking rocket science.

Seriously as in - no one needs to walk around in public with a gun. Guns should be locked away when not in use. Ammo should be locked away in a separate cabinet. Thorough checks should be made when applying for a gun licence. Have severe penalties for breaching any part of that. Regulate the type of gun that's actually needed


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 1, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Everyone didn't sell heroin in the first place.


reading comprehension evidently isn't your strong suit.



Captain Caveman said:


> Anyone with more than two brain cells understands that legislation/regulation on anything reduces and doesn't eliminate.


fortunately heroin use and sales isn't a protected Constitutional right like having a gun is.



Captain Caveman said:


> That's why your brain is foggy with the subject !


no fog here.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 1, 2021)

pknopp said:


> No one argued otherwise.


You did


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 1, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> If you have more guns and a deadlier range of guns per capita, the greater the casualties.


Ah.  More guns = more gun "casualties".
Explain, then how gun-related "casualties" in the US fell 50% from 1993-2017 while the number of guns increased 30%.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Nov 1, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah.  More guns = more gun "casualties".
> Explain, then how gun-related "casualties" in the US fell 50% from 1993-2017 while the number of guns increased 30%.


Try replying to my "full" quote and quit the fucking cherry picking. I hate arseholes that do that.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 1, 2021)

bodecea said:


> No he was not.   Why do you lie so glibly?


He was a National Socialist.  He was a socialist like any other socialist.  You people work damn hard to distance yourselves from the Nazis, but you'll never take socialism out of National Socialism.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 1, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Try replying to my "full" quote and quit the fucking cherry picking. I hate arseholes that do that.


So...  you , while arguing "more guns = more gun casualties", cannot explain how gun-related "casualties" in the US fell 50% from 1993-2017 while the number of guns increased 30%.    
Got it.
Thanks


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 1, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> If you have more guns and a deadlier range of guns per capita, the greater the casualties. It's not fucking rocket science.
> 
> Seriously as in - no one needs to walk around in public with a gun. Guns should be locked away when not in use. Ammo should be locked away in a separate cabinet. Thorough checks should be made when applying for a gun licence. Have severe penalties for breaching any part of that. Regulate the type of gun that's actually needed


They Mexicans do that and their murder rate is 3x that of the US.


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 1, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Try replying to my "full" quote and quit the fucking cherry picking. I hate arseholes that do that.


"its not fucking rocket science" somehow changes the quote?

LOL.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Nov 1, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> So...  you , while arguing "more guns = more gun casualties", cannot explain how gun-related "casualties" in the US fell 50% from 1993-2017 while the number of guns increased 30%.
> Got it.
> Thanks


The gun nuts always latch onto that statistical crap.









						Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no
					

Conflicting statistics about guns—such as how many people in the U.S. use guns for self-defense each year, and whether or not the crime rate is tied to how many people own guns—was the subject of a…




					www.hsph.harvard.edu


----------



## Captain Caveman (Nov 1, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> "its not fucking rocket science" somehow changes the quote?
> 
> LOL.


See my reply to your boyfriend.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 1, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> The gun nuts always latch onto that statistical crap.


And thus, your concession that you cannot explain how if, as you claim, more guns = more gun "casualties", said "casualties" fell 50% while the numbe rof guns increased ~30%
Thanks.

So...


> Taking guns seriously.
> How do I know? Results.


^^^^
Unsupportable nonsense.


----------



## pknopp (Nov 1, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> You did



 Nope.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 1, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Every time guns and the U.K comes up the lies come out that guns are banned there. Why is that? (rhetorical question)


This is exactly what you said...lol


----------



## pknopp (Nov 1, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> This is exactly what you said...lol



 Never did.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 1, 2021)

bodecea said:


> No he was not.   Why do you lie so glibly?


Wasn't Hitler the leader of the National Socialist Party of Germany (NAZI)?


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 1, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> The gun nuts always latch onto that statistical crap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you spelled "facts" wrong.


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 1, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> See my reply to your boyfriend.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 1, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> If you have more guns and a deadlier range of guns per capita, the greater the casualties. It's not fucking rocket science.
> 
> Seriously as in - no one needs to walk around in public with a gun. Guns should be locked away when not in use. Ammo should be locked away in a separate cabinet. Thorough checks should be made when applying for a gun licence. Have severe penalties for breaching any part of that. Regulate the type of gun that's actually needed



Over 27 years from the 1990s to 2015 more Americans bought and also carried guns, over 19.4 million people carryimg guns.

Gun murder went down 49%

Gun crime went down 75%

You dont know what you are talking about.

Guns do not cause crime

Democrats release violent gun criminals….and attack the police…..that is causing gun crime… you doofus.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> They are not effective....the bias of the British journalist pushing the myth that they work is just funny..


The site you quoted from is a "doomsday prepper/survivalist"one. His "bias" tends towards staying safe in the "dangerous times to come". Sorry if he's not extreme enough for you.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 3, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah.  You cannot cite specifics.  No surprise.
> 
> Fallacy:  _Post hoc ergo propter hoc._


Yes, the same fallacy employed when arguing increased gun ownership since the 1990's is the cause of the decrease in crime in America, or that 1.2 million Americans use their guns for self defence every year.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Yes, the same fallacy employed when arguing increased gun ownership since the 1990's is the cause of the decrease in crime in America, or that 1.2 million Americans use their guns for self defence every year.



Dipstick…..Although I could site studies that show gun ownership reduces crime that isnt the argument I make.

I point out that as more people own and carried guns over 27 years, in the United States…..gun murder went down 49%….gun crime went down75%

What this shows, beyond a doubt, is that gun ownership does not cause gun crime or murder.  Which is the exact opposite of what you idiots claim.

18 studies show that Americans use their legal guns upwards of 1.5 million times a year to stop rape, robbery, and murders…

You can deny those studies but they exist and show you dont have any rational arguments.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> I point out that as more people own and carried guns over 27 years, in the United States…..gun murder went down 49%….gun crime went down75%



You actually make a wild assumption that the one resulted in the other. Classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I'm sure you can provide "studies" that absolutely prove causality?



2aguy said:


> 18 studies show that Americans use their legal guns upwards of 1.5 million times a year to stop rape, robbery, and murders…



That would be 18 telephone "opinion polls" using small sample groups, which are then extrapolated to cover the entire country. It's called Pseudoscience. There is no way of telling how many times a gun is used in "self defence" without scientifically recording each and every incident. None of your "studies" do this. Basically, you are spouting BS.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> You actually make a wild assumption that the one resulted in the other. Classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I'm sure you can provide "studies" that absolutely prove causality?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be 18 telephone "opinion polls" using small sample groups, which are then extrapolated to cover the entire country. It's called Pseudoscience. There is no way of telling how many times a gun is used in "self defence" without scientifically recording each and every incident. None of your "studies" do this. Basically, you are spouting BS.




No....dipshit....

You claim that more guns create more gun crime....that is your claim...

From the 1990s to 2015.....27 years, more Americans went out, bought guns and over 19.4 million of them carried those guns in public for self defense....

According to you...that should have resulted in increased gun murder and gun crime....

That is your claim.

What actually happened?

Gun murder went down 49%...

Gun crime went down 75%....

Violent crime in general went down 72%..


What that shows is that your claim.....that more people owning and carrying guns creates more gun crime.....is wrong.....completely wrong.

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

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


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

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

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


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

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

1) the democrat party keeps releasing violent gun offenders...they have created a revolving door for criminals who use guns, and will release even the most serious gun offenders over and over again....why?   Probably because they realise that normal people don't use their guns for crime, so if they want to push gun control, they need criminals to shoot people.....so they keep releasing them....

2)  The democrat party keeps attacking the police.....driving the officers into not doing pro-active policing, cutting detective forces so that murders go unsolved..........


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> You actually make a wild assumption that the one resulted in the other. Classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I'm sure you can provide "studies" that absolutely prove causality?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be 18 telephone "opinion polls" using small sample groups, which are then extrapolated to cover the entire country. It's called Pseudoscience. There is no way of telling how many times a gun is used in "self defence" without scientifically recording each and every incident. None of your "studies" do this. Basically, you are spouting BS.




Nope......18 studies conducted by trained, professional researchers.....from both the government and private sector....most of whom are like you, anti-gun.......

Gary Kleck..in his study, used 5,000 people.......and found 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year...

To refute this, both the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Justice under Bill Clinton conducted their own research.........

What did they find.....?

The CDC found 1.2 million defensive gun uses...

The Department of Justice found 1.5 million...

In 2013....obama ordered the CDC to look at all of the gun research available......what did they find after spending 10 million dollars?

Between 500,000 thousand and 3 million defensive gun uses from all the available research...



A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and  Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million  averaged over  those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*2021 national firearms survey..*

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Yes, the same fallacy...


Just so long as you agree you presented a _post-hoc_ fallacy.
Thanks.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You claim that more guns create more gun crime....that is your claim...



Kindly point out the post where I ever made such a claim? I have always stated that there is no causality between declines in crime rates and increased gun purchases, which is your claim. See below:



2aguy said:


> From the 1990s to 2015.....27 years, more Americans went out, bought guns and over 19.4 million of them carried those guns in public for self defense....
> 
> According to you...that should have resulted in increased gun murder and gun crime....
> 
> ...


The fact that you then proceed with a torrent of your regurgitated cut and paste BS demonstrates conclusively you cannot prove causality, you're just making things up in pursuit of your gun nut agenda.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 6, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Just so long as you agree you presented a _post-hoc_ fallacy.
> Thanks.


Had I done so, I might well. However, you are confusing me with another poster, go talk to him.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The CDC found 1.2 million defensive gun uses...


No they didn't. They determined that their "reseach" was inadequate and inconclusive, so never published any such fugures. This is probably some conclusion Kleck came to when he requested the data.


2aguy said:


> In 2013....obama ordered the CDC to look at all of the gun research available......what did they find after spending 10 million dollars?
> 
> Between 500,000 thousand and 3 million defensive gun uses from all the available research...


Again, all the CDC did was examine all the available data from all the available studies by others. They did not endorse the findings, merely stating that the lowest number found in the studies they looked at was 500,000, and the largest, 3,000,000. You keep making wild claims to support your agenda, ignoring objective facts, typical propaganist firehose of falsehoods.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 6, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Kindly point out the post where I ever made such a claim? I have always stated that there is no causality between declines in crime rates and increased gun purchases, which is your claim. See below:
> 
> 
> The fact that you then proceed with a torrent of your regurgitated cut and paste BS demonstrates conclusively you cannot prove causality, you're just making things up in pursuit of your gun nut agenda.



Where does that information claim that guns lowered the crime rate....as I keep pointing out to you morons, that information shows, over 27 years, that more gun ownership by law abiding citizens does not increase gun crime...the exact opposite of what idiots like you claim...

However.......gun ownership research shows they also lower the crime rate...

These are the papers that show gun ownership lowers the crime rate.......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...144549202_Amicus brief SWD 7.19.2021 2300.pdf


Confirming "More Guns, Less Crime" on JSTOR

_*1977-2000*_
_*1.5%-2.3% reductions in murder rate
2-3 billion dollars benefit in first 5 years.


Wilson....

Appendix A Dissent--James Q. Wilson | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review | The National Academies Press

Lott argued that murder rates decline after the adoption of RTC laws even after allowing for the effect of other variables that affect crime rates. The committee has confirmed this finding as is evident in its Tables 6-1, 6-2, 6-5 (first row), 6-6 (first row), and 6-7 (first two rows). This confirmation includes both the original data period (1977-1992) used by Lott and data that run through 2000. In view of the confirmation of the findings that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate, it is hard for me to understand why these claims are called “fragile.”
-----
In addition, with only a few exceptions, the studies cited in Chapter 6, including those by Lott’s critics, do not show that the passage of RTC laws drives the crime rates up (as might be the case if one supposed that newly armed people went about looking for someone to shoot). The direct evidence that such shooting sprees occur is nonexistent. The indirect evidence, as found in papers by Black and Nagin and Ayres and Donohue [cited in Chapter 6], is controversial. Indeed, the Ayres and Donohue paper shows that there was a “statistically significant downward shift in the trend” of the murder rate (Chapter 6, page 135). This suggests to me that for people interested in RTC laws, the best evidence we have is that they impose no costs but may confer benefits. That conclusion might be very useful to authorities who contemplate the enactment of RTC laws.
----
In sum, I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate, though their effect on other crimes is ambiguous.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313
*_
_*Abstract*_​_*In 1997, John Lott and David Mustard published an important paper in which they found that right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws reduce violent crime. Although Lott and Mustard appear to do all possible variations of the analysis, a closer reading reveals that the study might suffer from several possibly important errors. I reestimate the model and check for incorrect functional form, omitted variables, and possible second‐order bias in the t‐ratios. Lott and Mustard's basic conclusions are generally robust with respect to these potential econometric problems. Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.

Do Right to Carry Laws Increase Violent Crime? A Comment on Donohue, Aneja, and Weber · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, gun control

Nevertheless, when we use the synthetic control model, we find that the claim that RTC laws increase either murder or violent crime is not supported. We find states where crime increased after the implementation of the RTC law, and we find more states in which crime decreased after the law.

Mustard, D. 2001. The impact of gun laws on police deaths. The Journal of Law & Economics, 44(S2): 635-657..

After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths.
-------
Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed.

(PDF) Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes—Only a Count Analysis Can Say
 We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies. Copyright 2001 by the University of Chicago.

EconPapers: Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness
 Overall, right-to-carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary. Copyright 2001 by the University of Chicago.

The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, crime, handguns, concealed weapons
Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.
The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication
his paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.*_


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 6, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No they didn't. They determined that their "reseach" was inadequate and inconclusive, so never published any such fugures. This is probably some conclusion Kleck came to when he requested the data.
> 
> Again, all the CDC did was examine all the available data from all the available studies by others. They did not endorse the findings, merely stating that the lowest number found in the studies they looked at was 500,000, and the largest, 3,000,000. You keep making wild claims to support your agenda, ignoring objective facts, typical propaganist firehose of falsehoods.




Nope.....I stated that actual research, conducted by trained professional researchers from both the private and public sectors, almost all of them anti-gun in their beliefs, showed the numbers of defensive gun uses..............I always list the studies...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and  Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

*CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million  averaged over  those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million*

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*2021 national firearms survey..*

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 6, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No they didn't. They determined that their "reseach" was inadequate and inconclusive, so never published any such fugures. This is probably some conclusion Kleck came to when he requested the data.
> 
> Again, all the CDC did was examine all the available data from all the available studies by others. They did not endorse the findings, merely stating that the lowest number found in the studies they looked at was 500,000, and the largest, 3,000,000. You keep making wild claims to support your agenda, ignoring objective facts, typical propaganist firehose of falsehoods.




No....they did the research, and realized it wasn't going to refute what Kleck found....so they hid the research.

Then you have to account for the other 17 studies........

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and  Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million  averaged over  those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*2021 national firearms survey..*

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 6, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Kindly point out the post where I ever made such a claim? I have always stated that there is no causality between declines in crime rates and increased gun purchases, which is your claim. See below:
> 
> 
> The fact that you then proceed with a torrent of your regurgitated cut and paste BS demonstrates conclusively you cannot prove causality, you're just making things up in pursuit of your gun nut agenda.




Never claimed causality with the Pew research......the 27 years of increased gun ownership and the 49% decrease in gun murder, and the 75% decrease in gun crime...

What I always state is that this shows that increased gun ownership does not cause an increase in gun crime or gun murder...........that is the claim asshats like you make........and then can't explain how gun murder and gun crime went down, not up over that 27 year period...

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

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


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

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

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


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

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

1) the democrat party keeps releasing violent gun offenders...they have created a revolving door for criminals who use guns, and will release even the most serious gun offenders over and over again....why?   Probably because they realise that normal people don't use their guns for crime, so if they want to push gun control, they need criminals to shoot people.....so they keep releasing them....

2)  The democrat party keeps attacking the police.....driving the officers into not doing pro-active policing, cutting detective forces so that murders go unsolved..........


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 6, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Kindly point out the post where I ever made such a claim? I have always stated that there is no causality between declines in crime rates and increased gun purchases, which is your claim. See below:
> 
> 
> The fact that you then proceed with a torrent of your regurgitated cut and paste BS demonstrates conclusively you cannot prove causality, you're just making things up in pursuit of your gun nut agenda.




These are the research papers that show more guns decrease crime...





> _Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997_
> _The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998_ (Copy available here)
> The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998
> _Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998_
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 6, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Had I done so, I might well. However, you are confusing me with another poster, go talk to him.


You are correct.
So, I amend my statement:
We are -both- clear he offered a_ post-hoc_ fallacy.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 13, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You are correct.
> So, I amend my statement:
> We are -both- clear he offered a_ post-hoc_ fallacy.


As I said, you'll have to take it up with him. Personally I doubt we'll ever agree on anything, although I like your "avatar" picture. Trying to remember which board wargame it comes from.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> These are the research papers that show more guns decrease crime...


Oh good grief! John Lott and his disciples cut and paste again. None of these so called studies prove the causality you inferred, i.e. that since more Americans bought more guns, the various crime rates dropped as a result.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Never claimed causality with the Pew research......the 27 years of increased gun ownership and the 49% decrease in gun murder, and the 75% decrease in gun crime...


Well, you did infer causality originally, until I destroyed your "argument"; then you changed to your "more guns did not cause an increase in crime" mantra.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Oh good grief! John Lott and his disciples cut and paste again. None of these so called studies prove the causality you inferred, i.e. that since more Americans bought more guns, the various crime rates dropped as a result.




Shithead....Lott is the best researcher out there on this topic and, of course, you pretend his are the only studies I listed......

I didn't infer anything, and each time a doofus like you tries that line of attack, I specifically point out the truth...

That as more Americans bought guns, and over 19.4 million of them carried guns in public for self defense over 27 years, gun murder went down 49%....gun crime went down 75%...

That means, doofus...that normal people who own and actually carry guns do not increase the gun crime or gun murder rate.....

You can't explain how that is possible since you feel that more guns = more gun crime.......

And you never answered the question.....

A woman wants a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London  park...the British police say she does not have "Good Reason," to own a gun.....

A member of the House of Lords wants to hunt quail with his rich friends on his private country estate..........according to the British police this is a "good reason," to own a gun.....

Do you think this makes any fucking sense?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Well, you did infer causality originally, until I destroyed your "argument"; then you changed to your "more guns did not cause an increase in crime" mantra.



You didn't destroy anything, you doofus......I exposed the stupidity of your argument when you tried to lie about my point.....

You can't explain how it is that over 27 years, Americans not only bought more guns, they actually carried them in public, and the gun murder rate went down 49%.....the gun crime rate went down 75%.....

You can't explain that.......you are wrong on every aspect of the gun debate and you have nothing to support what you feel about guns...

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

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


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

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

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


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

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

1) the democrat party keeps releasing violent gun offenders...they have created a revolving door for criminals who use guns, and will release even the most serious gun offenders over and over again....why?   Probably because they realise that normal people don't use their guns for crime, so if they want to push gun control, they need criminals to shoot people.....so they keep releasing them....

2)  The democrat party keeps attacking the police.....driving the officers into not doing pro-active policing, cutting detective forces so that murders go unsolved..........


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No....they did the research, and realized it wasn't going to refute what Kleck found....so they hid the research.


Prove it. 
Every DGU study that "contradicts" Kleck's theory, demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence available to make a determination one way or the other.  Basically extrapolations based on telephone surveys on small sample groups are meaningless.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Well, you did infer causality originally, until I destroyed your "argument"; then you changed to your "more guns did not cause an increase in crime" mantra.




And again...you refuse to answer these questions...

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......
Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?
A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Prove it.
> Every DGU study that "contradicts" Kleck's theory, demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence available to make a determination one way or the other.  Basically extrapolations based on telephone surveys on small sample groups are meaningless.




Kleck's isn't the only study, and you know it....over 18 now....all the way back to the 1990s....

You guys have nothing....actual research, by trained research professionals in both  private and government research have shown that Americans use their legal guns upwards of millions of times a year to stop rapes, robberies, stabbings, beatings, and murders.......

Two of those groups...the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Justice...under the Clinton Administration, specifically did their research to refute Kleck after his research came out....

Both failed........the CDC found that American use their legal guns 1.2 million times a year to stop violent crime, and the Department of Justice found the number to be 1.5 million times a year....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and  Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million  averaged over  those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*2021 national firearms survey..*

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Prove it.
> Every DGU study that "contradicts" Kleck's theory, demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence available to make a determination one way or the other.  Basically extrapolations based on telephone surveys on small sample groups are meaningless.




Again.....answer these questions....

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......
Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?
A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Lott is the best researcher out there on this topic and, of course, you pretend his are the only studies I listed......


ROFL! 
Even Kleck thinks Lott is wrong! Lott has been fired, sorry, "resigned" from every academic position he had which forced him to create his own "think tank" which he subsequently left and has now returned to after another failure working for the government. 

Oh, I said Lott and his disciples, do keep up. Many of the other studies you list state they used Lott's data, say no more.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Shithead....Lott is the best researcher out there on this topic and, of course, you pretend his are the only studies I listed......
> 
> I didn't infer anything, and each time a doofus like you tries that line of attack, I specifically point out the truth...
> 
> ...


Constantly cutting and pasting BS, does not stop it being BS. Here we go again with your firehose of falsehood, no surprise.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> ROFL!
> Even Kleck thinks Lott is wrong! Lott has been fired, sorry, "resigned" from every academic position he had which forced him to create his own "think tank" which he subsequently left and has now returned to after another failure working for the government.
> 
> Oh, I said Lott and his disciples, do keep up. Many of the other studies you list state they used Lott's data, say no more.




No.....Kleck and Lott disagree based on their respective disciplines.....you don't know what you are talking about....

You just lie.....you have nothing, so you lie.......I give you 18 studies.....two of them from anti-gun, government agencies...and you still lie.....

And again....you didn't answer the questions....

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?

A woman wants a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park...the British police say she does not have "Good Reason," to own a gun.....

A member of the House of Lords wants to hunt quail with his rich friends on his private country estate..........according to the British police this is a "good reason," to own a gun.....

Do you think this makes any sense?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Constantly cutting and pasting BS, does not stop it being BS. Here we go again with your firehose of falsehood, no surprise.




Constantly refusing to admit you are wrong, no matter how many times you see the actual research shows you really are nothing more than a moron.........you don't have facts, truth or reality on your side...

You believe it is better that a woman is gang raped in a London park than she have a gun to stop the rape.....while the member of the House of Lords should have his fowling piece so he can shoot quail on his private country estate....

You are an idiot....

A woman wants a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park...the British police say she does not have "Good Reason," to own a gun.....

A member of the House of Lords wants to hunt quail with his rich friends on his private country estate..........according to the British police this is a "good reason," to own a gun.....

Do you think this makes any fucking sense?

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......
Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?
A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?

You consistently refuse to answer these questions...because you know the "logic" of your answers is really stupid.....


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> ROFL!
> Even Kleck thinks Lott is wrong! Lott has been fired, sorry, "resigned" from every academic position he had which forced him to create his own "think tank" which he subsequently left and has now returned to after another failure working for the government.
> 
> Oh, I said Lott and his disciples, do keep up. Many of the other studies you list state they used Lott's data, say no more.




Here you go, dumb ass.......the actual debate...

*In addition, while Gary doesn’t seem to believe that the changes in the percent of adults who are legally carrying deters criminals, there is considerable evidence that criminal behavior changes, with violent crime rates falling as the percentage of people with permits increases.
-----*
_*Everyone knows of Gary’s work on guns being used defensively, but there is a contradiction here. While Gary points to guns being used defensively and those defensive uses exceed the number of times guns are used in the commission of crime, he repeatedly says that increased gun ownership doesn’t reduce crime.*_
_*
I don’t understand why Gary claims that more gun ownership doesn’t mean less crime, and I have asked him about this in multiple conversations, but whenever I have asked him to explain how these different claims could be reconciled he has declined to do so.
-----*_
_*There is a large economics literature showing that higher arrest and conviction rates as well as punishment, such as the death penalty, deter criminals (a survey is provided in Chapter 4 in my book Freedomnomics).*_
_*
As to evidence that armed victims deter criminals, there is a wide variety of evidence:
*_

_*States that issue the most permits have the biggest drops in violent crime and as the percentage of the adult population with permits increases you see further drops in violent crime.*_
_*Concealed carry permits have different effects on different types of crime. For example, violent crimes fall relative to property crimes for the simple reason that violent crimes involve direct contact between the victim and the criminal where the presence of a concealed handgun might make a difference. Or mass public shootings fall relative to murder rates because the greater the probability that someone can defend themselves, the greater the drop in crime. When you are talking about a shooting in a public place where there a large number of adults, the probability that at least one adult out of many will be able to defend themselves is much greater than when you are dealing with a criminal attacking a lone victim.*_
_*If you look at adjacent counties on opposite sides of a state border, the county in the state adopting a right-to-carry law sees a drop in violent crime at the same time that the adjacent county across the state border in a state without a right-to-carry law sees and increase in violent crime. The increase in the neighboring county is about 20 percent of the size of the drop in the country with the law.*_
*If Gary is correct that passage of right-to-carry laws have no impact on the number of people who carry, how can he explain all these different changes in crime rates? Why would crime rates change in these adjacent counties so differently? Why would violent crimes go down relative to property crimes? Or mass public shootings go down relative to other types of murders?*

*------*
_*Cross-sectional evidence is not particularly useful in accurately determining relationships, simply because purely cross-sectional doesn’t allow one to account for all the differences in crime rates across places. A detailed discussion is available here.*_
_*
Take a simple example, many point out that compared to the US the UK has relatively low murder rates and very restrictive gun control. They then attribute the lower homicide rate in the UK due to its gun control regulations. But the problem is that the UK’s homicide rates went up by 50 percent for eight years after the handgun ban was imposed in January 1997, and it only stopped going up and started going down after a large 18 percent increase in police.

That said, despite Gary’s claim, cross-sectional data isn’t the only data that we have “on the relationship between national gun ownership rates and national homicide rates.” One very simple example is that every single place in the world that has banned guns has seen an increase in murder rates. It isn’t just places such as Washington, DC and Chicago that banned handguns and saw increases in murder rates. Gun control advocates claim that bans can’t work in those cities because criminals can still get guns in neighboring areas or states. While this explanation might explain why crime rates don’t fall as much as gun controllers predicted, this can’t explain why the murder rates soared. In addition, even when island nations have adopted gun bans, you see large increases in murder rates.
*_
*Thus Gary is incorrect on all these counts.*









						Gary Kleck and John Lott Offer Closing Thoughts in Dispute over Gun Research - Ari Armstrong
					

Recently I conducted interviews with two prominent researchers, criminologist Gary Kleck and economist John Lott, each of whose work routinely is cited by people who advocate the right of civilians to own guns for self-defense. Both scholars discuss a wide range of topics related to gun...



					ariarmstrong.com


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> ROFL!
> Even Kleck thinks Lott is wrong! Lott has been fired, sorry, "resigned" from every academic position he had which forced him to create his own "think tank" which he subsequently left and has now returned to after another failure working for the government.
> 
> Oh, I said Lott and his disciples, do keep up. Many of the other studies you list state they used Lott's data, say no more.




Hmmmm...still waiting for you to answer these questions.......

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......
Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?
A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?

The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.

A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."

How does this make sense?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Kleck's isn't the only study, and you know it....over 18 now....all the way back to the 1990s....


Correct. There are as many studies, if not more, refuting Kleck as there are supporting him. You just cherry pick those in support while ignoring contrary data.


2aguy said:


> ...actual research, by trained research professionals in both private and government research have shown that Americans use their legal guns upwards of millions of times a year to stop rapes, robberies, stabbings, beatings, and murders...


No they don't. They can't because the available data is inconclusive and suspect at best. No-one knows who owns what or how many guns in the US, no-one really knows exactly how many times a gun is used in "self defence", which is why the figures are merely extrapolations of small sample surveys.


2aguy said:


> Two of those groups...the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Justice...under the Clinton Administration, specifically did their research to refute Kleck after his research came out....
> 
> Both failed........the CDC found that American use their legal guns 1.2 million times a year to stop violent crime, and the Department of Justice found the number to be 1.5 million times a year....


Prove that that was their motive. Both studies merely looked at the available data from the "studies" you keep citing and found that there was insufficient accurate data to make a determination one way or the other.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Constantly refusing to admit you are wrong, no matter how many times you see the actual research shows you really are nothing more than a moron.........you don't have facts, truth or reality on your side...


Ah, seems you are projecting your own inadequacies onto me again.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Correct. There are as many studies, if not more, refuting Kleck as there are supporting him. You just cherry pick those in support while ignoring contrary data.
> 
> No they don't. They can't because the available data is inconclusive and suspect at best. No-one knows who owns what or how many guns in the US, no-one really knows exactly how many times a gun is used in "self defence", which is why the figures are merely extrapolations of small sample surveys.
> 
> Prove that that was their motive. Both studies merely looked at the available data from the "studies" you keep citing and found that there was insufficient accurate data to make a determination one way or the other.




Professional researchers.....trained researchers.......working for both the government and private research institutions......

The Kleck sample is 5,000 people.....a huge amount for any research sample.....dittos the DOJ study.....

I listed 18 that state the numbers they found.....you say they made it up....trained researchers from both private and public research groups from the 1990s to 2020.....

I guess we can't know how many people do anything at all........no clue, no idea.....because we can't count each and every individual act they perform..........

And yet these methods are used to find out much of what we know today about every aspect of life....but.....they can't be used to find the number of gun uses in self defense....because....you don't like people who own guns......

Good argument.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Ah, seems you are projecting your own inadequacies onto me again.




And....you still refuse to answer these questions...

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?

The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.

A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 13, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> If you have more guns and a deadlier range of guns per capita, the greater the casualties. It's not fucking rocket science.
> 
> Seriously as in - no one needs to walk around in public with a gun. Guns should be locked away when not in use. Ammo should be locked away in a separate cabinet. Thorough checks should be made when applying for a gun licence. Have severe penalties for breaching any part of that. Regulate the type of gun that's actually needed


That’s why you are a subject and I am a citizen.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> You actually make a wild assumption that the one resulted in the other. Classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I'm sure you can provide "studies" that absolutely prove causality?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be 18 telephone "opinion polls" using small sample groups, which are then extrapolated to cover the entire country. It's called Pseudoscience. There is no way of telling how many times a gun is used in "self defence" without scientifically recording each and every incident. None of your "studies" do this. Basically, you are spouting BS.


Several of those studies come from groups critical of gun rights.  Also your methodology is wrong.  No study is done the way you suggest.  It would be impossible.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 15, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Professional researchers.....trained researchers.......working for both the government and private research institutions......


..and "professional researchers, trained researchers, etc. Conducted studies that found the opposite


2aguy said:


> The Kleck sample is 5,000 people.....a huge amount for any research sample.....dittos the DOJ study.....


Wow, 5,000 people. Was that their sample group, or the ones that bothered to respond? Out of a total population of over 300,000,000.


2aguy said:


> I listed 18 that state the numbers they found.....you say they made it up....trained researchers from both private and public research groups from the 1990s to 2020.....


I'll bet if I bothered, I could find similar numbers that refute your 18.


2aguy said:


> And yet these methods are used to find out much of what we know today about every aspect of life....


Oh please, total BS. They're opinion polls at best. There's no hard empirical data involved.


2aguy said:


> ...you don't like people who own guns...


Wow, before 1997, I was a member of two gun clubs and owned 3 handguns. I went shooting on the club ranges at least once a week, it was fun and I enjoyed myself with a great bunch of like minded people, all responsible gun owners. I even joined in the protests against the handgun ban, so please STFU.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 15, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Also your methodology is wrong. No study is done the way you suggest.


Really? Care to elaborate?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 15, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Really? Care to elaborate?


Show me a study where the people conducting the study interviewed EVERY possible person involved. Studies are always taken of representative samples of the affected group.  Even FDA approved drug studies use representative groups.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 15, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> ..and "professional researchers, trained researchers, etc. Conducted studies that found the opposite
> 
> Wow, 5,000 people. Was that their sample group, or the ones that bothered to respond? Out of a total population of over 300,000,000.
> 
> ...




Yeah....still haven't answered these....

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?
------
The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.

A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."

This makes sense to you?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 15, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> ..and "professional researchers, trained researchers, etc. Conducted studies that found the opposite
> 
> Wow, 5,000 people. Was that their sample group, or the ones that bothered to respond? Out of a total population of over 300,000,000.
> 
> ...




Again......actual researchers from both the government and private research groups.....you don't like that what they found shows you have no rational argument.....so you dismiss their work........


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 16, 2021)

2aguy said:


> ...so you dismiss their work...


Not at all, I just challenge pseudoscience and bad practice where I find it. Both Lott and Kleck are derided in academia because of their poor methodology. They are just latched onto by gullible pro-gun fanatics and the gun industry to give their warped world view "credibility" and to increase gun sales.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 16, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Show me a study where the people conducting the study interviewed EVERY possible person involved. Studies are always taken of representative samples of the affected group.  Even FDA approved drug studies use representative groups.


I'm well aware of how studies are conducted, and I don't expect every possible person to be interviewed/questioned/polled. I do expect, however, that researchers show responsibility and integrity in the models that the construct from their samples. Kleck, for example, asked 5000 people if they or a member of their household had used a gun for self protection in the preceeding year. 50, yes, 50, answered "yes" and as if by magic Kleck concluded that 2.5 million DGUs occur every year in America... he was laughed off the stage and was forced to play around with his model to obtain a much reduced figure, which is still widely considered suspect.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 16, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Not at all, I just challenge pseudoscience and bad practice where I find it. Both Lott and Kleck are derided in academia because of their poor methodology. They are just latched onto by gullible pro-gun fanatics and the gun industry to give their warped world view "credibility" and to increase gun sales.



No, they are attacked by left wing, anti-gun extremists because their research showw the anti-gun hysteria is crap.

18 studies that support Klecks work.....one feom the CDC and one from the Departmemt of Justice.....and you just dismiss them...

You are a doofus


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 16, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> I'm well aware of how studies are conducted, and I don't expect every possible person to be interviewed/questioned/polled. I do expect, however, that researchers show responsibility and integrity in the models that the construct from their samples. Kleck, for example, asked 5000 people if they or a member of their household had used a gun for self protection in the preceeding year. 50, yes, 50, answered "yes" and as if by magic Kleck concluded that 2.5 million DGUs occur every year in America... he was laughed off the stage and was forced to play around with his model to obtain a much reduced figure, which is still widely considered suspect.




You make things up, and expect us ro take you seriously.   Kleck never
changed his research, that was anti-gunner david kellerman who was forced to change his numbers you doofus.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 17, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> I'm well aware of how studies are conducted, and I don't expect every possible person to be interviewed/questioned/polled. I do expect, however, that researchers show responsibility and integrity in the models that the construct from their samples. Kleck, for example, asked 5000 people if they or a member of their household had used a gun for self protection in the preceeding year. 50, yes, 50, answered "yes" and as if by magic Kleck concluded that 2.5 million DGUs occur every year in America... he was laughed off the stage and was forced to play around with his model to obtain a much reduced figure, which is still widely considered suspect.




Still waiting.........as you dodge, duck and weave to avoid answering difficult questions...

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?
-------

The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.

A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."

Does this make sense to you?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 18, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No, they are attacked by left wing, anti-gun extremists because their research showw the anti-gun hysteria is crap.


As opposed to the right wing fundamentalist gun fanatics who attack studies that contradict Kleck/Lott because they demonstrate that the pro-gun hysteria is insanely crap.


2aguy said:


> ..one feom the CDC and one from the Departmemt of Justice...


CDC never carried out a study, neither did the DoJ, but hey what are facts to right wing fundamentalist gun fanatics?


2aguy said:


> that was anti-gunner david kellerman


Who? I assume you are talking about Arthur Kellerman?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 18, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Still waiting.........as you dodge, duck and weave to avoid answering difficult questions...


Nope, just waiting for a difficult question to appear, not happened yet.

Can't help but notice that you post these inane fantasy scenario non questions, every time I debunk your "arguments",  in a pathetic attempt to deflect from the issues discussed. Sad.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 18, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> As opposed to the right wing fundamentalist gun fanatics who attack studies that contradict Kleck/Lott because they demonstrate that the pro-gun hysteria is insanely crap.
> 
> CDC never carried out a study, neither did the DoJ, but hey what are facts to right wing fundamentalist gun fanatics?
> 
> Who? I assume you are talking about Arthur Kellerman?




The CDC buried their stats....because they were too high....and along the lines of what Kleck found.....you doofus.....


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 18, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Nope, just waiting for a difficult question to appear, not happened yet.
> 
> Can't help but notice that you post these inane fantasy scenario non questions, every time I debunk your "arguments",  in a pathetic attempt to deflect from the issues discussed. Sad.




Just showing that where your beliefs go, innocent victims suffer.......

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?

The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.

A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Just showing that where your beliefs go, innocent victims suffer.......


Really? You have no idea what my beliefs are, as usual you just make things up as you go. As for innocent victims...please! How may people have been shot in the USA this week, by people who until they took out their gun and pulled the trigger were "normal" citizens?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The CDC buried their stats...


No they didn't


2aguy said:


> along the lines of what Kleck found...


ROFL! Kleck ESTIMATED (guessed) from a tiny sample, that between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs occurred. He never gave any definitive figure, neither did any of the other studies, thats why the figures are so varied. You're just making this up again, as usual.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No they didn't
> 
> ROFL! Kleck ESTIMATED (guessed) from a tiny sample, that between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs occurred. He never gave any definitive figure, neither did any of the other studies, thats why the figures are so varied. You're just making this up again, as usual.




And his research was backed up by the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Justice who did their own research to refute his work....and simply confirmed what he found.......

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and  Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million  averaged over  those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*2021 national firearms survey..*

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Really? You have no idea what my beliefs are, as usual you just make things up as you go. As for innocent victims...please! How may people have been shot in the USA this week, by people who until they took out their gun and pulled the trigger were "normal" citizens?




90% of murderers have long histories of crime and violence, so sell that bullshit to Biden voters........

Public Health Pot Shots




*These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journalEducational Horizons that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available. *
*
Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence.

Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.


Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals."

Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.
Contrary to the impression fostered by Rosenberg and other opponents of gun ownership, the term "acquaintance homicide" does not mean killings that stem from ordinary family or neighborhood arguments. Typical acquaintance homicides include: an abusive man eventually killing a woman he has repeatedly assaulted; a drug user killing a dealer (or vice versa) in a robbery attempt; and gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals killing each other for reasons of economic rivalry or personal pique.

According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."
A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicinereported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.

-------As the English gun control analyst Colin Greenwood has noted, in any society there are always enough guns available, legally or illegally, to arm the violent. The true determinant of violence is the number of violent people, not the availability of a particular weapon. Guns contribute to murder in the trivial sense that they help violent people kill. But owning guns does not turn responsible, law-abiding people into killers. If the general availability of guns were as important a factor in violence as the CDC implies, the vast increase in firearm ownership during the past two decades should have led to a vast increase in homicide. The CDC suggested just that in a 1989 report to Congress, where it asserted that "**ince the early 1970s the year-to-year fluctuations in firearm availability has [sic] paralleled the numbers of homicides."
======*

The Criminology of Firearms
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

*Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.*

*While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."*


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And his research was backed up by the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Justice


No it wasn't. You keep repeating this copy/paste BS. Clearly following Herr Goebbels' "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth" dictum. it's called the Illusion of truth, or the big lie, as you like to call it nowadays.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> 90% of murderers have long histories of crime and violence, so sell that bullshit to Biden voters.......


Ah, so you have no idea,  or you just want to hide those statistics with spurious deflections, thought so. Thanks for confirming that.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 2, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No it wasn't. You keep repeating this copy/paste BS. Clearly following Herr Goebbels' "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth" dictum. it's called the Illusion of truth, or the big lie, as you like to call it nowadays.



They did the work and then hid it....Kleck found it and pointed out they hid the wirk......since it supported what he and the other studies showed.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 2, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Ah, so you have no idea,  or you just want to hide those statistics with spurious deflections, thought so. Thanks for confirming that.



18 studies on guns used for self defense....18.......and all of them are wrong because you say so........you are
just awesome....


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 3, 2021)

surada said:


> Oh my.. You still think Hitler was a socialist.


Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist German Workers' Party in English most people just called them Nazi's. You do know who their leader was ?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 7, 2021)

2aguy said:


> ...you are just awesome....


I know, it's nice that you recognise that fact.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 7, 2021)

2aguy said:


> 18 studies on guns used for self defense....18.......and all of them are wrong because you say so...


Back to topic. 18 estimates are just that, Estimates (best guesses), not facts.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 7, 2021)

2aguy said:


> They did the work and then hid it...


FALSE. They compiled data from other surveys, found the available data from these inconclusive and said so at the time. Nothing was hidden.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 7, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> FALSE. They compiled data from other surveys, found the available data from these inconclusive and said so at the time. Nothing was hidden.


You won't get far with 2aguy, utterly pro gun, utterly thick as fuck.

US gun deaths 12.21 per 100,000 population and the UK's was 0.23. and 2aguy thinks gun regulations don't work. 2aguy makes a single cell organism look like Einstein.



			Gun Deaths by Country 2023


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> FALSE. They compiled data from other surveys, found the available data from these inconclusive and said so at the time. Nothing was hidden.




Nope.....that was in 2013 under obama..........where they spent 10 million dollars to study all available data on gun self defense....and came up with between 500,000-3 million defensive gun uses...the research the CDC in the 1990s was their own...which they hid, because it supported what Kleck found...


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> You won't get far with 2aguy, utterly pro gun, utterly thick as fuck.
> 
> US gun deaths 12.21 per 100,000 population and the UK's was 0.23. and 2aguy thinks gun regulations don't work. 2aguy makes a single cell organism look like Einstein.
> 
> ...




The criminals in Britain have all the guns they want and need...the criminals don't murder each other the way American criminals do........yet.....but the British police can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into the country...

Police struggle to stop flood of firearms into UK

*Police** and border officials are struggling to stop a rising supply of illegal firearms being smuggled into Britain, a senior police chief has warned.

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019

The Guardian has learned that the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns.

The NCA has used tasking powers to direct greater intelligence about firearms to be gathered by all 43 forces in England and Wales.
*
*Another senior law enforcement official said that “new and clean” weapons were now being used in the majority of shootings, as opposed to guns once being so difficult to obtain that they would be “rented out” to be used in multiple crimes.*
*
Cooke, the Merseyside chief constable, told the Guardian: “We in law enforcement expect the rise in new firearms to continue. We are doing all we can. We are not in a position to stop it anytime soon.
*
*“Law enforcement is more joined up now than before, but the scale of the problem is such that despite a number of excellent firearms seizures, I expect the rise in supply to be a continuing issue.”*
*
The increasing supply of guns belies problems with UK border security and innovations by organised crime gangs. Smugglers have increasingly found new ways and innovative routes to get guns past border defences.

Cooke said that the dynamics of the streets of British cities had changed and that criminals were more willing to use guns: “If they bring them in people will buy them. It’s a kudos thing for organised criminals.”

Simon Brough, head of firearms at the NCA, said: “The majority of guns being used are new, clean firearms ... which indicates a relatively fluid supply.”

He said shotguns were 40% of the total, with an increase in burglaries to try and steal them.
*
*Handguns are the next biggest category, most often smuggled in from overseas, with ferry ports such as Dover being a popular entry point into the UK for organised crime groups:*
*
“We’re doing a lot to fight back against it,” Brough said, adding that compared to other European countries, the availability in the UK was relatively lower.*
==========

*Matt Perfect, the crime agency’s firearms threat lead, said that new Skorpion and G9A automatic pistols, which fire at a speed comparable to an AK47 assault rifle, were found.*
*
Gangs bring rapid‑fire guns to Britain’s streets

=====


*
*cotland Yard today said police are seizing more deadly automatic weapons from criminals in London as detectives revealed that an innocent bystander was gunned down with a suspected Skorpion sub-machine gun last month .
----*
Revealed - The deadly cache of guns taken off West Midlands streets

A former undercover cop who snared members of the Burger Bar Boys has warned violent gangs are in an “arms race” to control the West Midlands’ illegal drugs trade.

Neil Woods, now a campaigner to legalise recreational drugs for rehabilitation benefits, said criminals are willing to use “extreme violence” to gain an upper hand on their competitors.

That includes “importing” illegal firearms from places like the “Balkans” region of south eastern Europe onto the streets of the West Midlands, ready for combat.

UK Gangs In "Arms Race" Despite Gun Control Laws



*Illegal weapons in the city have been increasing over the last few years, figures show.Girl, 16, arrested after three loaded guns and 200 bullets seized in raid*
*
Diana Fawcett, the charity's chief executive, told Sky News: "At a time when the number of homicides has been falling, deaths related to gun crime are showing significant increases which is incredibly concerning.More than 600 children in the UK were arrested for suspected firearm offences last year amid the coronavirus pandemic, new figures reveal.
A Sky News investigation has found children as young as 11 were among more than 2,000 youths detained for alleged crimes involving guns, imitation firearms and air weapons between 2018 and January 2021.
-----
Simeon Moore, who carried a gun aged 15 when he was a member of a notorious Birmingham gang, said young people arming themselves often believe they are doing "the right thing".
---
"From knives, we started to carry guns. For me, at the time it was a means of protection.*
*"I was walking around and at any point I could get beat up, stabbed or have my head blown off.
------*
Liverpool gangs 'dominate' gun and drugs trade outside London


*Organised criminal gangs from Liverpool have risen to the summit of the UK underworld and “dominate” the firearms and drugs-trade outside London, the latest intelligence from senior officers at the National Crime Agency (NCA) reveals.*
*---
Analysis of encrypted messages from a communications system used by criminals has shown that the city has become the preeminent location for top-tier gangs sourcing high-volume importations of drugs and automatic weapons.
------

Analysis by the NFTC found that Merseyside and the broader north-west corridor was home to a network of gun factories converting low-calibre weapons such as the Czech-made Škorpion and Slovakian Grand Power into deadly automatic firearms.

Perfect said that converting weapons was seen by some in the region as a viable business. 

A low-calibre Glock handgun bought for £135 in eastern Europe could be converted in just 90 seconds to a 9mm weapon that could be sold for up to £5,000.
-----
nalysis of the intelligence from EncroChat has revealed other surprises to firearms officers. Perfect said: 
*
*“If you’d asked me before Venetic what was the firearm of choice for an organised crime group, I’d have absolutely said the Glock handgun. Venetic showed that the Škorpion SMG and the Grand Power are now becoming that weapon of choice.”*


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 7, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> US gun deaths 12.21 per 100,000 population and the UK's was 0.23. and 2aguy thinks gun regulations don't work.


Please demonstrate the necessary relatioinship between the gun laws in the UK and their lower rate of gun-related crime.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Please demonstrate the necessary relatioinship between the gun laws in the UK and their lower rate of gun-related crime.




Thank you.  That for ro the point better than i have been able to do...


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 8, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> You won't get far with 2aguy, utterly pro gun, utterly thick as fuck.
> 
> US gun deaths 12.21 per 100,000 population and the UK's was 0.23. and 2aguy thinks gun regulations don't work. 2aguy makes a single cell organism look like Einstein.
> 
> ...


You can always tell when 2aguy wants to deflect, you get a prolonged cut and paste post (#132 for example) as he tries to bury your point in a torrent of BS.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Please demonstrate the necessary relatioinship between the gun laws in the UK and their lower rate of gun-related crime.


US gun deaths 12.21 per 100,000 population and the UK's was 0.23.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 8, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> You can always tell when 2aguy wants to deflect, you get a prolonged cut and paste post (#132 for example) as he tries to bury your point in a torrent of BS.




No....I am responding to your attempt to lie about the research......you see the research, and then you post the above because the actual research shows you are wrong.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 8, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> US gun deaths 12.21 per 100,000 population and the UK's was 0.23.






And how does that have any relation to your gun laws?

Again....before you banned and confiscated guns, your gun murder rate was low....after you banned and confiscated guns, the rate stayed the same.....after spiking for about 10 years...

Now?

Police struggle to stop flood of firearms into UK

Police and border officials are struggling to stop a rising supply of illegal firearms being smuggled into Britain, a senior police chief has warned.

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019

The Guardian has learned that the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns.

The NCA has used tasking powers to direct greater intelligence about firearms to be gathered by all 43 forces in England and Wales.

Another senior law enforcement official said that “new and clean” weapons were now being used in the majority of shootings, as opposed to guns once being so difficult to obtain that they would be “rented out” to be used in multiple crimes.

*Cooke, the Merseyside chief constable, told the Guardian: “We in law enforcement expect the rise in new firearms to continue. We are doing all we can. We are not in a position to stop it anytime soon.*

“Law enforcement is more joined up now than before, but the scale of the problem is such that despite a number of excellent firearms seizures, I expect the rise in supply to be a continuing issue.”

The increasing supply of guns belies problems with UK border security and innovations by organised crime gangs. Smugglers have increasingly found new ways and innovative routes to get guns past border defences.

*Cooke said that the dynamics of the streets of British cities had changed and that criminals were more willing to use guns: “If they bring them in people will buy them. It’s a kudos thing for organised criminals.”

Simon Brough, head of firearms at the NCA, said: “The majority of guns being used are new, clean firearms ... which indicates a relatively fluid supply.”*

He said shotguns were 40% of the total, with an increase in burglaries to try and steal them.

*Handguns are the next biggest category,* most often smuggled in from overseas, with ferry ports such as Dover being a popular entry point into the UK for organised crime groups:

“We’re doing a lot to fight back against it,” Brough said, adding that compared to other European countries, the availability in the UK was relatively lower.
==========



*Powerful automatic guns are being smuggled into Britain for use by organised crime gangs.

The National Crime Agency and police seized weapons in raids on the homes of previously untouchable “Mr Big”s after receiving intelligence from European detectives who broke an encrypted phone network used by drug dealers and gun traffickers.*









						Gangs bring rapid‑fire guns to Britain’s streets
					

Powerful automatic guns are being smuggled into Britain for use by organised crime gangs.The National Crime Agency and police seized weapons in raids on the ho




					www.thetimes.co.uk
				




Matt Perfect, the crime agency’s firearms threat lead, said that new Skorpion and G9A automatic pistols, which fire at a speed comparable to an AK47 assault rifle, were found.

Diana Fawcett, the charity's chief executive, told Sky News: "At a time when the number of homicides has been falling, deaths related to gun crime are showing significant increases which is incredibly concerning.More than 600 children in the UK were arrested for suspected firearm offences last year amid the coronavirus pandemic, new figures reveal.
A Sky News investigation has found children as young as 11 were among more than 2,000 youths detained for alleged crimes involving guns, imitation firearms and air weapons between 2018 and January 2021.
-----
Simeon Moore, who carried a gun aged 15 when he was a member of a notorious Birmingham gang, said young people arming themselves often believe they are doing "the right thing".
---
"From knives, we started to carry guns. For me, at the time it was a means of protection.
"I was walking around and at any point I could get beat up, stabbed or have my head blown off.
Hundreds of children arrested for suspected gun crimes during COVID pandemic
==============

ttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/11/liverpool-gangs-dominate-gun-and-drugs-trade-outside-london


Organised criminal gangs from Liverpool have risen to the summit of the UK underworld and “dominate” the firearms and drugs-trade outside London, the latest intelligence from senior officers at the National Crime Agency (NCA) reveals.
---
Analysis of encrypted messages from a communications system used by criminals has shown that the city has become the preeminent location for top-tier gangs sourcing high-volume importations of drugs and automatic weapons.
------

Analysis by the NFTC found that Merseyside and the broader north-west corridor was home to a network of gun factories converting low-calibre weapons such as the Czech-made Škorpion and Slovakian Grand Power into deadly automatic firearms.

Perfect said that converting weapons was seen by some in the region as a viable business. 

A low-calibre Glock handgun bought for £135 in eastern Europe could be converted in just 90 seconds to a 9mm weapon that could be sold for up to £5,000.
-----
nalysis of the intelligence from EncroChat has revealed other surprises to firearms officers. Perfect said: 

“If you’d asked me before Venetic what was the firearm of choice for an organised crime group, I’d have absolutely said the Glock handgun. Venetic showed that the Škorpion SMG and the Grand Power are now becoming that weapon of choice.”



cotland Yard today said police are seizing more deadly automatic weapons from criminals in London as detectives revealed that an innocent bystander was gunned down with a suspected Skorpion sub-machine gun last month .

Rise in sub-machine guns on London streets

Revealed - The deadly cache of guns taken off West Midlands streets

A former undercover cop who snared members of the Burger Bar Boys has warned violent gangs are in an “arms race” to control the West Midlands’ illegal drugs trade.

Neil Woods, now a campaigner to legalise recreational drugs for rehabilitation benefits, said criminals are willing to use “extreme violence” to gain an upper hand on their competitors.

That includes “importing” illegal firearms from places like the “Balkans” region of south eastern Europe onto the streets of the West Midlands, ready for combat.

UK Gangs In "Arms Race" Despite Gun Control Laws


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 8, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> You can always tell when 2aguy wants to deflect, you get a prolonged cut and paste post (#132 for example) as he tries to bury your point in a torrent of BS.




Since you stopped by.....

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?
======

The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.

A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."

Do you support this?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> US gun deaths 12.21 per 100,000 population and the UK's was 0.23.



At best, this is an allusion to a _post-hoc_ fallacy.
As such, this does nothing to demonstrate the necessary relatioinship between the gun laws in the UK and their lower rate of gun-related crime, as per you claim  
Feel free to try again.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> At best, this is an allusion to a _post-hoc_ fallacy.
> As such, this does nothing to demonstrate the necessary relatioinship between the gun laws in the UK and their lower rate of gun-related crime, as per you claim
> Feel free to try again.




Wait.......

Does...

"But he says so...."  Count?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Wait.......
> Does...
> "But he says so...."  Count?


Personally, I don't think he understands the challenge I put to him.
Or, he understands it all too wll and knows he can't meet it.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 8, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> You can always tell when 2aguy wants to deflect, you get a prolonged cut and paste post (#132 for example) as he tries to bury your point in a torrent of BS.


Yes, I've noticed, just loads of copy and pasted crap.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 8, 2021)

Overall, UK has much lower murder rate then USA.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 8, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You're more likely to get shot in Sweden than you are in the UK.


Thank you!

RIP all people who died by guns.


----------



## surada (Dec 8, 2021)

2aguy said:


> I know hitler was a socialist.  That you do not know this is the problem with people like you……



Hitler split with the socialists in 1926.. In 1933 he purged the German government of Socialists, Communists, Democrats and Jews.. He killed them or put them in Dachau.

You have NO education.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 8, 2021)

Nazis believed in *Survival of the Fittest*.

I oppose that 100%.  Every Human Life has paramount value.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 9, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yes, I've noticed, just loads of copy and pasted crap.


...and when that fails, he starts on strawman non-questions, which, when you answer, he just moves the goalposts, sad and pathetic desperate attempts to salvage his debunked "arguments"


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 9, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> As such, this does nothing to demonstrate the necessary relatioinship between the gun laws in the UK and their lower rate of gun-related crime, as per you claim


Erm,
1. what's a "necessary relatioinship"?
2. not my "claim", just stating facts.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 9, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Nazis believed in *Survival of the Fittest*.
> 
> I oppose that 100%.  Every Human Life has paramount value.


Just like right-wing conservatives everywhere.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 9, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Erm,
> 1. what's a "necessary relatioinship"?


Cause and effect.
B is the necessary result of A, and only exists because of it.


Vagabond63 said:


> 2. not my "claim", just stating facts.


Your post implies that your "facts" prove gun regulations work
For that to be true, you must demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim between those gun regulations and the "facts" you provided


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> ...and when that fails, he starts on strawman non-questions, which, when you answer, he just moves the goalposts, sad and pathetic desperate attempts to salvage his debunked "arguments"




You never answered the actual questions...real world questions about actual situations.......here....

How is this a straw man "non-question," when it is based on a woman gang raped in a London Park?  With the mayor of London stating women are not safe in London?

*A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?*


Then you have this....this is how gun control works in Britain...the rich and connected get guns...women who can be raped in parks, their apartments or on the street do not....


*The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.

A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."

Does this make any sense?*


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

surada said:


> Hitler split with the socialists in 1926.. In 1933 he purged the German government of Socialists, Communists, Democrats and Jews.. He killed them or put them in Dachau.
> 
> You have NO education.




No...actually, he didn't.....he just took over the party.....

Yes...he first took guns away from the Jews, his political enemies and anyone they thought might be a threat...then they murdered them...in Germany and the rest of Europe....

12 million innocent men, women and children murdered in a period of about 6 years....

Meanwhile, in the U.S......870,000 people were murdered with guns over a period of 87 years.....the majority of those murdered were criminals, murdered by other criminals engaged in crime.....they were not innocents....

Of the rest, the vast majority are the friends and family of criminals, hit in the gun fire when their criminal family member or friend got in the way of the other criminal shooting.....

12 million in 6 years....

870,000 in 87 years...

The sad thing is you don't think it could happen again.......


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Just like right-wing conservatives everywhere.




Moron....Right Wing conservatives in the U.S. are not Right wing (actually leftists too) in Europe.....we believe in the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the Bill of Rights....

You, with your desire to limit Rights and empower government are the wrong one here...


----------



## bodecea (Dec 9, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Overall, UK has much lower murder rate then USA.


Gun control works...here, it's 2 a day.


----------



## surada (Dec 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No...actually, he didn't.....he just took over the party.....
> 
> Yes...he first took guns away from the Jews, his political enemies and anyone they thought might be a threat...then they murdered them...in Germany and the rest of Europe....
> 
> ...



How do you know what I think? Hitler used the Socialists to get his foot in the door and formally broke with them in 1926.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

bodecea said:


> Gun control works...here, it's 2 a day.




And how does gun control stop criminals in Britain from getting illegal guns...or shooting up malls, schools, theaters or churches?

You guys are under the illusion that criminals and their culture stays the same......it doesn't....the immigrant drug gangs

How did gun control stop this....

Police struggle to stop flood of firearms into UK

Police and border officials are struggling to stop a rising supply of illegal firearms being smuggled into Britain, a senior police chief has warned.

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019

The Guardian has learned that the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns.

The NCA has used tasking powers to direct greater intelligence about firearms to be gathered by all 43 forces in England and Wales.

Another senior law enforcement official said that “new and clean” weapons were now being used in the majority of shootings, as opposed to guns once being so difficult to obtain that they would be “rented out” to be used in multiple crimes.

*Cooke, the Merseyside chief constable, told the Guardian: “We in law enforcement expect the rise in new firearms to continue. We are doing all we can. We are not in a position to stop it anytime soon.*

“Law enforcement is more joined up now than before, but the scale of the problem is such that despite a number of excellent firearms seizures, I expect the rise in supply to be a continuing issue.”

The increasing supply of guns belies problems with UK border security and innovations by organised crime gangs. Smugglers have increasingly found new ways and innovative routes to get guns past border defences.

*Cooke said that the dynamics of the streets of British cities had changed and that criminals were more willing to use guns: “If they bring them in people will buy them. It’s a kudos thing for organised criminals.”

Simon Brough, head of firearms at the NCA, said: “The majority of guns being used are new, clean firearms ... which indicates a relatively fluid supply.”*

He said shotguns were 40% of the total, with an increase in burglaries to try and steal them.

*Handguns are the next biggest category**,* most often smuggled in from overseas, with ferry ports such as Dover being a popular entry point into the UK for organised crime groups:

“We’re doing a lot to fight back against it,” Brough said, adding that compared to other European countries, the availability in the UK was relatively lower.
==========

*Powerful automatic guns are being smuggled into Britain for use by organised crime gangs.

The National Crime Agency and police seized weapons in raids on the homes of previously untouchable “Mr Big”s after receiving intelligence from European detectives who broke an encrypted phone network used by drug dealers and gun traffickers.*

Gangs bring rapid‑fire guns to Britain’s streets

*cotland Yard today said police are seizing more deadly automatic weapons from criminals in London as detectives revealed that an innocent bystander was gunned down with a suspected Skorpion sub-machine gun last month .*

Rise in sub-machine guns on London streets

*A former undercover cop who snared members of the Burger Bar Boys has warned violent gangs are in an “arms race” to control the West Midlands’ illegal drugs trade.*

*Neil Woods, now a campaigner to legalise recreational drugs for rehabilitation benefits, said criminals are willing to use “extreme violence” to gain an upper hand on their competitors.*

*That includes “importing” illegal firearms from places like the “Balkans” region of south eastern Europe onto the streets of the West Midlands, ready for combat.*

UK Gangs In "Arms Race" Despite Gun Control Laws

*Diana Fawcett, the charity's chief executive, told Sky News: "At a time when the number of homicides has been falling, deaths related to gun crime are showing significant increases which is incredibly concerning.More than 600 children in the UK were arrested for suspected firearm offences last year amid the coronavirus pandemic, new figures reveal.*
*A Sky News investigation has found children as young as 11 were among more than 2,000 youths detained for alleged crimes involving guns, imitation firearms and air weapons between 2018 and January 2021.
-----
Simeon Moore, who carried a gun aged 15 when he was a member of a notorious Birmingham gang, said young people arming themselves often believe they are doing "the right thing".
---
"From knives, we started to carry guns. For me, at the time it was a means of protection.
"I was walking around and at any point I could get beat up, stabbed or have my head blown off.*
*https://news.sky.com/story/revealed-hundreds-of-children-arrested-for-suspected-gun-crimes-during-covid-pandemic-including-some-just-12-12238859*
==============

Liverpool gangs 'dominate' gun and drugs trade outside London


*Organised criminal gangs from Liverpool have risen to the summit of the UK underworld and “dominate” the firearms and drugs-trade outside London, the latest intelligence from senior officers at the National Crime Agency (NCA) reveals.*
*---
Analysis of encrypted messages from a communications system used by criminals has shown that the city has become the preeminent location for top-tier gangs sourcing high-volume importations of drugs and automatic weapons.
------

Analysis by the NFTC found that Merseyside and the broader north-west corridor was home to a network of gun factories converting low-calibre weapons such as the Czech-made Škorpion and Slovakian Grand Power into deadly automatic firearms.

Perfect said that converting weapons was seen by some in the region as a viable business. 

A low-calibre Glock handgun bought for £135 in eastern Europe could be converted in just 90 seconds to a 9mm weapon that could be sold for up to £5,000.
-----
nalysis of the intelligence from EncroChat has revealed other surprises to firearms officers. Perfect said: *

*“If you’d asked me before Venetic what was the firearm of choice for an organised crime group, I’d have absolutely said the Glock handgun. Venetic showed that the Škorpion SMG and the Grand Power are now becoming that weapon of choice.”*


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

surada said:


> How do you know what I think? Hitler used the Socialists to get his foot in the door and formally broke with them in 1926.




He was a socialist....but you guys have been trying to lie about him since the Death Camps were discovered.......if you can't unload him, then all of the worst mass murders since 1917 happened at the hands of left wing socialists...and the communist mass murders are still hidden behind a veil of stupidity by people like you.....


----------



## surada (Dec 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And how does gun control stop criminals in Britain from getting illegal guns...or shooting up malls, schools, theaters or churches?
> 
> You guys are under the illusion that criminals and their culture stays the same......it doesn't....the immigrant drug gangs
> 
> ...



They don't have a wild, wild west culture in the UK or in Europe. Guns are for gentlemen not thugs and cowboys.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No it wasn't. You keep repeating this copy/paste BS. Clearly following Herr Goebbels' "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth" dictum. it's called the Illusion of truth, or the big lie, as you like to call it nowadays.




The difference......between Britain and the U.S....

*"The rape was reported to have occurred in Watling Park off Cressingham Road in Edgware at approximately 21:30hrs on Saturday, 28 August.*
*
"The victim, a woman in her 50s, continues to be supported by specially trained officers.*









						Woman in her 50s raped in London park in horror attack as police search for man
					

The Met Police want to speak to a man recorded on CCTV walking through Burnt Oak station after a woman in her 50s was raped walking through Watling Park, Edgware




					www.dailystar.co.uk
				




The U.S.....

Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them

LANCASTER, Ohio - It happened along a walking path in Lancaster.

Dinah Burns is licensed to carry a concealed gun, but she'd only recently started taking her weapon while walking her dog.

Based on what happened, it looks like she'll make a point of carrying from now on.

"I think if they'd gotten any closer, I probably would have fired,” said Burns.

It was Monday when Burns was on a footpath near Sanderson Elementary School.

"Two gentlemen came out of the woods, one holding a baseball bat, and said 'You're coming with us'."

The men weren't deterred by Dinah's dog Gracie.

"I said, 'Well, what do you want?,' and as I was saying that I reached in to my pocket and slipped my gun out, slipped the safety off as I pulled it out. As I was doing that the other gentleman came toward me and raised the baseball bat. And, I pointed the gun at them and said, 'I have this and I'm not afraid to use it.'"

The men took off and so far have eluded police. Dinah posted about the incident on Facebook to alert friends and neighbors, to criticism by some.

"Most of the males' opinion was, 'Why didn't you shoot them?'"

Easy to second-guess a decision made under pressure, based on her concealed carry training, and police agree.

"To get out of a situation, back out, get out of it as much as you can without having to discharge your firearm."

"I will say it's a good thing to go from a place of danger to a place of safety, however you get that done,” said Sgt. Matt Chambers, Lancaster Police.

"Very thankful that it turned out the way it did, and hope it doesn't happen again, but I will be prepared."
========
What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day | Fox News

What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day

I correctly listened to my instincts; I had a feeling that my life was in danger in that elevator and prepared myself mentally for what was potentially to come.

I ran to my car in an attempt to escape and, before I could even get my entire body in my car, I was tackled by my attacker.

This man quickly overpowered me, stabbed at me with a knife, clamped his hand over my mouth multiple times, and repeatedly tried forcing me in the passenger seat of my car while telling me, “We’re going.”

*The entire time this was happening, a rusted, serrated knife was being stabbed towards my abdomen and held at my face. 

I had been hit in the face, thrown over my driver’s side console, and had rips in my tights from his hands trying to force my legs up and over into the passenger seat.*

There are some individuals that think gun owners are “trigger happy” and wanting to pull their weapons out at the first opportunity. There is nothing further from the truth.

The night I was attacked, I fought like hell for my life before reaching for my gun. I kicked, I screamed, I had all ten fingernails ripped off and bloodied from scratching and trying to fight my way out of a literal life and death situation.

*Ultimately, I accessed my gun, shot my attacker multiple times, and saved my life. He will be spending years in prison for what he did to me.*

Using a gun in self-protection is not a decision one makes lightly; in fact, I never dreamed that I would be forced into a situation where I would have to do so. However, I also never imagined such evil existing in the world so that I would be powerless, wounded, on my back and unable to physically force my attacker off of me.

I owned a gun and had been trained on how to use it. I know how to safely carry and that a gun is a serious and significant weapon; it is not to be used carelessly. Naysayers and people with opposing opinions may try to undermine my situation with hypotheticals. I cannot answer these questions. All I can do is tell the facts of my story and the true account of how I saved my own life.

*What I want you to know on Gun Awareness Day is that a gun in the hands of a potential victim is not improperly placed; it can be the only thing keeping her from being brutally raped and murdered. *

Without my gun, I would not be alive today.


*Guns are not the problem in America; men like my attacker -- who are willing to violently change one person’s life for no reason except for pure evil – are the problem.*

Be safe at all times. Be aware of your surroundings. Trust your instincts. Always be able to protect yourself. Refuse to be a victim, and instead be a fighter and a survivor. Live to tell your tale and make a criminal regret the day he chose you as a “soft target.” My gun saved my life, and one could save yours too.


*So, again.....*

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?

=====

The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.


A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."

Does this make sense to you?


----------



## surada (Dec 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> He was a socialist....but you guys have been trying to lie about him since the Death Camps were discovered.......if you can't unload him, then all of the worst mass murders since 1917 happened at the hands of left wing socialists...and the communist mass murders are still hidden behind a veil of stupidity by people like you.....



Hitler was not a socialist.. He never nationalized any industry. Have you spent time in Germany or been to Dachau? I have been many times.. My longest visit was 5 weeks. 

Hitler was a racist, nationalist and fascist. He killed socialists and communists or put them in concentration camps along with professors, lawyers, doctors and clergy.. basically anyone who had an education and could challenge his bullshit rhetoric.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

surada said:


> They don't have a wild, wild west culture in the UK or in Europe. Guns are for gentlemen not thugs and cowboys.




Yes.......and women walking in parks can get raped.........

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?

====

The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.


A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."

That makes sense to you?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

surada said:


> Hitler was not a socialist.. He never nationalized any industry. Have you spent time in Germany or been to Dachau? I have been many times.. My longest visit was 5 weeks.
> 
> Hitler was a racist, nationalist and fascist. He killed socialists and communists or put them in concentration camps along with professors, lawyers, doctors and clergy.. basically anyone who had an education and could challenge his bullshit rhetoric.




Fascism is socialism....

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty


A
s an economic system, fascism is *socialism* with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from _fasces,_ the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful *competition*, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary *Marxism*, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. 

Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
*Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.*

*Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) *
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.
x
*In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.*

Read A Pile Of Top Nazis Talking About How They Love Leftist Marxism

The Nazis were leftists. This statement is blasphemy to the academic-media complex, since _everyone knows_ the Nazis were degenerate right-wingers fueled by toxic capitalism and racism. But evidence Adolf Hitler’s gang were men of the left, while debatable, is compelling.
The dispute on Nazi origins resurfaced through the confluence of brawling alt-right and antifa fringe movements and recent alternative histories by Dinesh D’Souza and others. The vitriol and lack of candor it produces from supposedly fact-driven academics and media is disturbing, if unsurprising. They stifle dissent on touchy subjects to maintain their narrative and enforce cultural hegemony.

However uncomfortable to opinion shapers, alternative views of the Third Reich exist and were written by the finest minds of their time. Opinions from the period perhaps carry more weight because they are unburdened by the aftermath of the uniquely heinous Nazi crimes.
------

*Also, Adolf Hitler Loved Karl Marx*
It wasn’t only theoretical. Hitler repeatedly praised Marx privately, stating he had “learned a great deal from Marxism.” The trouble with the Weimar Republic, he said, was that its politicians “had never even read Marx.” He also stated his differences with communists were that they were intellectual types passing out pamphlets, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun.”

It wasn’t just privately that Hitler’s fealty for Marx surfaced. In “Mein Kampf,” he states that without his racial insights National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.” Nor did Hitler eschew this sentiment once reaching power. As late as 1941, with the war in bloom, he stated “basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same” in a speech published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Nazi propaganda minister and resident intellectual Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that the Nazis would install “real socialism” after Russia’s defeat in the East. And Hitler favorite Albert Speer, the Nazi armaments minister whose memoir became an international bestseller, wrote that Hitler viewed Joseph Stalin as a kindred spirit, ensuring his prisoner of war son received good treatment, and even talked of keeping Stalin in power in a puppet government after Germany’s eventual triumph. His views on Great Britain’s Winston Churchill and the United States’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt were decidedly less kind.

*Nazi and Communist Hatred of Each Other Was Brotherly*
Despite this, there’s a persistent claim that Nazis and communists hated each other, and mention that the Nazis persecuted socialists and oppressed trade unions. These things are true, but prove little. The camps’ hatred stemmed from familiarity. It was internecine, the nastiest kind.

The Nazis and communists were not only in a struggle for street-war supremacy, but also recruits. These recruits were easily turned, because both sides were fighting for the same men. Hayek recalls


----------



## Circe (Dec 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yes.......and women walking in parks can get raped.........
> 
> A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......
> 
> ...


Gang rape nothing ----- twice now it's been a cop! A bobby. Darn. Yeah, I think women need to be carrying EVERYWHERE.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

surada said:


> They don't have a wild, wild west culture in the UK or in Europe. Guns are for gentlemen not thugs and cowboys.




They have a mass murder culture.....World War 1, World War 2, ethnic cleansing, socialism, fascism, communism.....12 million murdered after 1917....in a 6 year period.....

12 million men, women and children murdered by the socialists across Europe, after they surrendered their guns on the promise that would make them safer....

Meanwhile, in the U.S. total gun murder from the 1930s?  Around 870,000......87 years and it doesn't come close to the organized murder of innocents by their own governments...

And you think it is a good idea to give up our guns?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 9, 2021)

bodecea said:


> Gun control works...here, it's 2 a day.


Much less then in USA.  Even per capita.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Nope.....that was in 2013 under obama..........where they spent 10 million dollars to study all available data on gun self defense....and came up with between 500,000-3 million defensive gun uses...the research the CDC in the 1990s was their own...which they hid, because it supported what Kleck found...


ROFL! more BS from 2aguy. 
The CDC included a question on DGU in three of their annual surveys in their BRFSS (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys in 1996, 1997, and 1998. Kleck* himself *stated that it is impossible to extrapolate meaningfully from the small set of states surveyed over the course of those three years to a solid national DGU figure after a peer review forced him to withdraw his original paper regarding the CDC data. The CDC hid nothing, the data from those surveys was widely available at the time. There were no conspiracies to bury information.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> How is this a straw man "non-question," when it is based on a woman gang raped in a London Park?


...and the goalposts are on the move again. You started asking this question months before that particular incident took place, you are just manipulating matters to fit your narrative, pathetic.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The difference......between Britain and the U.S....


*sigh* More reguritated BS... It's disturbing, however, that you appear to be obsessed with rape. Just an FYI, in neither of your incidents was rape a factor. Kristie MCMains attacker was charged with attempted murder, robbery, kidnapping and criminal mischief.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> 12 million men, women and children murdered by the socialists across Europe,


Just out of curiosity, where do you get this figure from? I assume given the dates 1917-22, you are alluding to the Russian civil war?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> ROFL! more BS from 2aguy.
> The CDC included a question on DGU in three of their annual surveys in their BRFSS (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys in 1996, 1997, and 1998. Kleck* himself *stated that it is impossible to extrapolate meaningfully from the small set of states surveyed over the course of those three years to a solid national DGU figure after a peer review forced him to withdraw his original paper regarding the CDC data. The CDC hid nothing, the data from those surveys was widely available at the time. There were no conspiracies to bury information.




Yep,  good thing we also have Kleck's work and 17 other studies in the subject to go with the CDC numbers....

Yes...the numbers were so widely available they werent discovered till Kleck discovered they existed.....almost 20 years later....

He pulled his statememts on the CDC then submitted the new work on the CDC numbers...

You still cant get around the fact that 18 diffeeent research groups from both private and public groups, using trained, professional researchers have found these numbers ........ yet only you know the truth.......


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Just out of curiosity, where do you get this figure from? I assume given the dates 1917-22, you are alluding to the Russian civil war?



12 million muredeed by the German socialists across Europe, 25 million by the Russian communists over 70 million by rhe Chinese communists......


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Just out of curiosity, where do you get this figure from? I assume given the dates 1917-22, you are alluding to the Russian civil war?




Here....this puts the socialists murdering far more than 12 million...

*By genocide, the murder of hostages, reprisal raids, forced labor, "euthanasia," starvation, exposure, medical experiments, and terror bombing, and in the concentration and death camps, the Nazis murdered from 15,003,000 to 31,595,000 people, most likely 20,946,000 men, women, handicapped, aged, sick, prisoners of war, forced laborers, camp inmates, critics, homosexuals, Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Germans, Czechs, Italians, Poles, French, Ukrainians, and many others. Among them 1,000,000 were children under eighteen years of age.1 *

*And none of these monstrous figures even include civilian and military combat or war-deaths*





__





						NAZI GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER
					





					hawaii.edu


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> *sigh* More reguritated BS... It's disturbing, however, that you appear to be obsessed with rape. Just an FYI, in neither of your incidents was rape a factor. Kristie MCMains attacker was charged with attempted murder, robbery, kidnapping and criminal mischief.




How do you know that rape wasn't a factor?   Considering the two guys with the bat wanted to drag the woman into the woods.....and if the guy who stabbed her when she resisted was originally going to kidnap her...you don't think rape would have been involved?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Just out of curiosity, where do you get this figure from? I assume given the dates 1917-22, you are alluding to the Russian civil war?




And since you are back....

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?
====

The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.

A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."

Does this make sense to you?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yep and the weapons they use are fully automatic military rifles and grenades, both of which are illegal in all of Europe, Britain and Sweden.


2012?










						PolitiFact - United States’ gun deaths are among highest in the world, but only the highest by one measure
					

Is the United States so awash in guns that gun violence has become a public health crisis? Dr. Rochelle Walensky, direct




					www.politifact.com


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 13, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> ROFL! more BS from 2aguy.
> The CDC included a question on DGU in three of their annual surveys in their BRFSS (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys in 1996, 1997, and 1998. Kleck* himself *stated that it is impossible to extrapolate meaningfully from the small set of states surveyed over the course of those three years to a solid national DGU figure after a peer review forced him to withdraw his original paper regarding the CDC data. The CDC hid nothing, the data from those surveys was widely available at the time. There were no conspiracies to bury information.




The Kleck research with commentary...

SSRN Electronic Library



*Abstract*​*In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to seven states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Data pertaining to the same sets of states from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995) allow these results to be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole. CDC’s survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

=========



Reason article on the revised paper..



A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use



-------


*
*Original version before he went back to revise it...*

*The actual paper by Kleck revealing the CDC hiding data..*
*


SSRN Electronic Library

The timing of CDC’s addition of a DGU question to the BRFSS is of some interest. Prior to 1996, the BRFSS had never included a question about DGU. Kleck and Gertz (1995) conducted their survey in February through April 1993, presented their estimate that there were over 2 million DGUs in 1992 at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology in November 1994, and published it in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in the Fall of 1995. CDC added a DGU question to the BRFSS the very first year they could do so after that 1995 publication, in the 1996 edition. CDC was not the only federal agency during the Clinton administration to field a survey addressing the prevalence of DGU at that particular time. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) financed a national survey devoting even more detailed attention to estimating DGU prevalence, which was fielded in November and December 1994, just months after preliminary results of the 1993 Kleck/Gertz survey became known. Neither CDC nor NIJ had ever financed research into DGU before 1996. Perhaps there was just “something in the air” that motivated the two agencies to suddenly decide in 1994 to address the topic. Another interpretation, however, is that fielding of the surveys was triggered by the Kleck/Gertz findings that DGU was common, and that these agencies hoped to obtain lower DGU prevalence estimates than those obtained by Kleck/Gertz. Low estimates would have implied fewer beneficial uses of firearms, results that would have been far more congenial to the strongly pro-control positions of the Clinton administration.


CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns



Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Those polls, Kleck writes,
*


> *are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).*


*Kleck was impressed with how well the survey worded its question: "During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?" Respondents were told to leave out incidents from occupations, like policing, where using firearms is part of the job. Kleck is impressed with how the question excludes animals but includes DGUs outside the home as well as within it.

Kleck is less impressed with the fact that the question was only asked of people who admitted to owning guns in their home earlier in the survey, and that they asked no follow-up questions regarding the specific nature of the DGU incident.

From Kleck's own surveys, he found that only 79 percent of those who reported a DGU "had also reported a gun in their household at the time of the interview," so he thinks whatever numbers the CDC found need to be revised upward to account for that. (Kleck speculates that CDC showed a sudden interest in the question of DGUs starting in 1996 because Kleck's own famous/notorious survey had been published in 1995.)

At any rate, Kleck downloaded the datasets for those three years and found that the "weighted percent who reported a DGU...was 1.3% in 1996, 0.9% in 1997, 1.0% in 1998, and 1.07% in all three surveys combined."





Kleck figures if you do the adjustment upward he thinks necessary for those who had DGU incidents without personally owning a gun in the home at the time of the survey, and then the adjustment downward he thinks necessary because CDC didn't do detailed follow-ups to confirm the nature of the incident, you get 1.24 percent, a close match to his own 1.326 percent figure.

He concludes that the small difference between his estimate and the CDC's "can be attributed to declining rates of violent crime, which accounts for most DGUs. With fewer occasions for self-defense in the form of violent victimizations, one would expect fewer DGUs."

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. 
*


> *This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.*


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You still cant get around the fact that 18 diffeeent research groups from both private and public groups, using trained, professional researchers have found these numbers ........ yet only you know the truth.......


*sigh* 
Every one of these "research groups" state that they *extrapolate from relatively small samples*. They take a *best guess*. 

None of these groups claim their research is "absolute truth", they leave that to whack job conspiracy theorists and those with agendas to cherry pick and promote. 

*ESTIMATES/GUESSES* of DGUs range from 300,000 to 3,000,000; the true figure could be 1/10th of that to 10x that, that has always been my position, whereas you treat these figures as absolute facts; they're not. Sorry to burst your bubble.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The Kleck research with commentary...
> 
> SSRN Electronic Library


OH, I so love it when you destroy your own argument with your own links. 

Your SSRN link states "This paper has been removed from SSRN at the request of the author, SSRN, or the rights holder."

As I said before Kleck removed his paper when peer reviews demolished his findings. 

Oh, BTW from the Reason article you quote,

"Kleck notes that it's simply impossible to extrapolate meaningfully from the small set of states surveyed over the course of those three years to a solid national DGU figure from the BRFSS itself: "We cannot directly apply these estimates to the U.S. because the sets of states do not constitute a probability sample of the U.S. The prevalence of DGU could be far higher in some states than in the nation as a whole if the states have higher-than-average rates of gun ownership and/or crime, or could be far lower if the set of states had lower gun ownership or crime rates."


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Here....this puts the socialists murdering far more than 12 million...


Ah, thought so. Another figure you made up.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 14, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> OH, I so love it when you destroy your own argument with your own links.
> 
> Your SSRN link states "This paper has been removed from SSRN at the request of the author, SSRN, or the rights holder."
> 
> ...



And yet you have thenumbers the CDC dound and failed to follow up on because they wernt going to refute klecks work......

As pointed out in the links he posted updated work ....... based on the numbers he found.....

And again,  you have to ifnore the other 17 studies......


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And yet you have thenumbers the CDC dound and failed to follow up on because they wernt going to refute klecks work......


No, the CDC wasn't studying DGUs at the time and from 1996 were no longer allowed to, even if they wanted to.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 14, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Ah, thought so. Another figure you made up.



Are you insane?   I gave you a link to the numbers....and they are actually higher than the 12 million I usually post


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 14, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> OH, I so love it when you destroy your own argument with your own links.
> 
> Your SSRN link states "This paper has been removed from SSRN at the request of the author, SSRN, or the rights holder."
> 
> ...



From the reason article...

_Kleck later produced a new version of the paper that recalculates the degree to which CDC's survey work indeed matches or corroborates his, and a discussion of those fresh results can be found in this post published on September 4, 2018._


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 14, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No, the CDC wasn't studying DGUs at the time and from 1996 were no longer allowed to, even if they wanted to.



Moron... the CDC was never banned from soing gun research.....that is a lie.....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 14, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No, the CDC wasn't studying DGUs at the time and from 1996 were no longer allowed to, even if they wanted to.




And this is a lie.......which, being you, you fell for.....

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


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

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (_Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented __historical series__)._ Here is what we showed the committee:


_Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine __article__ that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants._
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

I*n summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.*


_The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, __Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence__, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”_
_The brazen __public comments__ of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals._
_“*We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.*


*CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.*
*=========
And more....*

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.

Dr. Lott testifying in 2019 about gun research and the CDC as well as private research..

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



No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

*Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.*
*
Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

*


_


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Now, as their social welfare states have finally reached peak damage to their family and societal structure….their young men are turning to crime and violence…….


While young women are given such excellent opportunities for the advancement of their careers under the direction of balding older gentlemen of the district in horn-rimmed glasses.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 14, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No, the CDC wasn't studying DGUs at the time and from 1996 were no longer allowed to, even if they wanted to.




And since you are back again........

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?

=====


The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.

A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."

Does this make sense to you?

*Do you prefer that a woman is raped than she use a gun to stop the rape?*


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......
> 
> Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?


Sounds like he's a paying customer then and she's going down for murder 1 in N.Y.C. because he's a regular guy on the train and all that.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Dec 26, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And this is a lie.......which, being you, you fell for.....
> 
> This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....
> 
> ...


So, none of the above relates to research into DGUs, nice try, but another 2aGuy fail.

Oh, here's an interesting article that contradicts some of the above:








						This Graph Illustrates Exactly How The Gun Violence Research Ban Hurt Science
					

Research plummeted after the 1996 ban.




					www.huffpost.com


----------



## Dagosa (Dec 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The anti-gun extremists try to compare the U.S.  to Britain when it comes to gun crime…..what they fail to realize is that Europe was set back decades because of the World War they started, which allowed the socialists to murder 12 million people, outside of those killed by the war…and the massive destruction to their societies…..
> 
> Now, as their social welfare states have finally reached peak damage to their family and societal structure….their young men are turning to crime and violence…….
> 
> ...


Gee, your own article says the UK has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world. Of course, it’s not unusual to have assault weapon murders in elementary schools like the gun crazed US gun a holic supporters if weak gun laws here prefer.


----------



## Dagosa (Dec 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Non-lethal?  Anything that harms an attacker is also forbidden in Britain.
> 
> She could use a whistle….
> 
> Yes….explain to the woman gang raped in the London Park that the Bobbies are there to protect her…..except they were not there and she was brutally gang raped.


Wow, that happens regularly in southern gop cities in crime ridden southern states.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 30, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> Wow, that happens regularly in southern gop cities in crime ridden southern states.




Democrat party controlled cities cause the gun crime rates, you doofus...another anti-gun idiot tried to make the same dumb point you are making this week, and was owned just like you.....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 30, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> So, none of the above relates to research into DGUs, nice try, but another 2aGuy fail.
> 
> Oh, here's an interesting article that contradicts some of the above:
> 
> ...




This is a lie.......right from the title...there was no ban on gun research..........

First.....actual gun research after the Dickey Amendment.....

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


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

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

*When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.*
*
They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”*
*Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.
===============*

*Then to point out that the article you linked to is  lying...*

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to _advocate or promote gun control_.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.

Dr. Lott testifying in 2019 about gun research and the CDC as well as private research..

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



No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

*Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.*
*
Does it?

 Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. 

Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.


Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.



And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------*
*There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.*




Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (_Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented __historical series__)._ Here is what we showed the committee:

_Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine __article__ that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants._
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

I*n summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.*

_The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, __Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence__, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”_
_The brazen __public comments__ of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals._
_“*We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.
*_

_*CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.*_


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 30, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> So, none of the above relates to research into DGUs, nice try, but another 2aGuy fail.
> 
> Oh, here's an interesting article that contradicts some of the above:
> 
> ...




You idiot........from 2013....

*In particular, a 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:*









						That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses
					

Why did the CDC fail to publish 1990s research on numbers of defensive gun uses?




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The anti-gun extremists try to compare the U.S.  to Britain when it comes to gun crime…..what they fail to realize is that Europe was set back decades because of the World War they started, which allowed the socialists to murder 12 million people, outside of those killed by the war…and the massive destruction to their societies…..
> 
> Now, as their social welfare states have finally reached peak damage to their family and societal structure….their young men are turning to crime and violence…….
> 
> ...


How many kids were killed in America in the last month? Embarrassing isn't it. 
Don't quote other countries tragedies as some pathetic justification. Grow up and accept the fact, you have no need for all these guns in circulation.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jan 1, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You idiot........from 2013....
> 
> *In particular, a 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:*
> 
> ...


Oh please, this is too easy. Once again your own source destroys your arguments. Try reading the 2013 "study" cited. It merely rehashes the "pro" and "anti" studies from Kleck et al. and concludes no-one knows how common DGUs are in reality. This is not CDC doing their own research into DGU events.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jan 1, 2022)

Just a general observation, wouldn't there be less gun crime in the USA if there were less guns in circulation and therefore easily obtained by these "criminals"?


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Oh please, this is too easy. Once again your own source destroys your arguments. Try reading the 2013 "study" cited. It merely rehashes the "pro" and "anti" studies from Kleck et al. and concludes no-one knows how common DGUs are in reality. This is not CDC doing their own research into DGU events.



Dipshit, they started their own research in the 1990s to “debunk,” Kleck, but what they found supported what he found…..so they stopped their research and hid their data…………..in 2013, Obama wanted to start up gun control again…….the democrat gun control push in the 1990s ended when it cost them control of the House……they had had total control over the House for 40 years…..

Obama ordered the CDC to look at all current gun research and they still couldn’t dispute Kleck’s work……..


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Just a general observation, wouldn't there be less gun crime in the USA if there were less guns in circulation and therefore easily obtained by these "criminals"?



Wouldn’t there be less car jacking if there were fewer cars around, and less rape if we didn’t let women walk around unaccompanied by male family members?


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> How many kids were killed in America in the last month? Embarrassing isn't it.
> Don't quote other countries tragedies as some pathetic justification. Grow up and accept the fact, you have no need for all these guns in circulation.


In


Vagabond63 said:


> Just a general observation, wouldn't there be less gun crime in the USA if there were less guns in circulation and therefore easily obtained by these "criminals"?




Wouldn't there be less rape, if women just stopped reporting them?  Wouldn't there be less robbery if people voluntarily handed over their goods to other people who demanded them?

Wouldn't there be less robbery if there was less money in a society?   Fewer wallets owned by people?


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> How many kids were killed in America in the last month? Embarrassing isn't it.
> Don't quote other countries tragedies as some pathetic justification. Grow up and accept the fact, you have no need for all these guns in circulation.



Let's focus on gun deaths ....shall we.....2019

Children: ( age <1 to 14, stopping at 14 because 15 year old gang members begin to skew the data...)

Gun murder

Age  <1 to 14...........269

Other types of Child murder.....\

893

Accidental gun death

Age <1 to 14

51


Now.....other causes......

Drowning......645
Poisoning.....74
Falls.............58
Suffocation.....1,295
Cars.....1,282


----------



## Dagosa (Jan 1, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Democrat party controlled cities cause the gun crime rates, you doofus...another anti-gun idiot tried to make the same dumb point you are making this week, and was owned just like you.....


The most violent crimes against persons are aggravated  or first degree in most STATE laws prosecuted by the state. Get a grip on reality. You don’t seem to know much. If anyone is let go for aggravated assault, it’s at the state level by a state appointed justice. Thinking the town has control of the state justice system is ridiculous. The state laws in many southern  states are notoriously weak and vague  for one reason. It allows prosecution to be selective vs minorities including plea bargaining where many minorities sit in jail for years who have never been convicted. It’s a national disgrace at the foot of the racist gop state governments.


BtW, look at the 8 most dangerous cities. Just as many  in Southern states. Local governments
Gee, where is Chicago ? No where to be found.

 1 Anchorage, Alaska
2. Memphis, Tennessee Mississippi-Arkansas
3. Lubbock, Texas
4. Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, Michigan
5. Springfield, Missouri
6. San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, California
7. Corpus Christi, Texas
8. Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The most violent crimes against persons are aggravated  or first degree in most STATE laws prosecuted by the state. Get a grip on reality. You don’t seem to know much. If anyone is let go for aggravated assault, it’s at the state level by a state appointed justice. Thinking the town has control of the state justice system is ridiculous. The state laws in many southern  states are notoriously weak and vague  for one reason. It allows prosecution to be selective vs minorities including plea bargaining where many minorities sit in jail for years who have never been convicted. It’s a national disgrace at the foot of the racist gop state governments.
> 
> 
> BtW, look at the 8 most dangerous cities. Just as many  in Southern states. Local governments
> ...





Moron, the states listed right there...that you don't link to the crime stats for....are controlled by democrats...........and the only exception is Alaska whose problem is lack of police in the Tribal areas, and massive alcohol and drug problems...it is also a haven for criminals hiding from the law....

Texas?   You mean the state that shares the border with the Narco State of Mexico........where the democrats have allowed drug cartels to run across the border without stopping them?

You need to work harder to push your lies....


----------



## Dagosa (Jan 1, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron, the states listed right there...that you don't link to the crime stats for....are controlled by democrats...........and the only exception is Alaska whose problem is lack of police in the Tribal areas, and massive alcohol and drug problems...it is also a haven for criminals hiding from the law....
> 
> Texas?   You mean the state that shares the border with the Narco State of Mexico........where the democrats have allowed drug cartels to run across the border without stopping them?
> 
> You need to work harder to push your lies....


Arkansas, repo, Texas repo….your remarks are foolish. Really, do you ever check to make sure before you make up shit ?


----------



## Dagosa (Jan 1, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Just a general observation, wouldn't there be less gun crime in the USA if there were less guns in circulation and therefore easily obtained by these "criminals"?


Exactly; we lead the industrialized world in both gun violence and firearm ownership. “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a  good guy with a gun” is a stupid argument. Comon sense gun
laws are to reduce the number of bad guys with guns so ideally, only good  guys have easy access  to a gun.  But no. Gun a holics just want to appease firearm makers.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Arkansas, repo, Texas repo….your remarks are foolish. Really, do you ever check to make sure before you make up shit ?




Moron....blue cities drive up the rates of murder in Red states...you doofus...then throw in the democrat party war on police and you have cops across the country who will not jeopardize their jobs, their pensions or their families to pro-actively stop criminals.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Exactly; we lead the industrialized world in both gun violence and firearm ownership. “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a  good guy with a gun” is a stupid argument. Comon sense gun
> laws are to reduce the number of bad guys with guns so ideally, only good  guys have easy access  to a gun.  But no. Gun a holics just want to appease firearm makers.




Are you really this stupid, or are you trolling?

Mexico has one gun store, it is on a military base and only special people are allowed to access it.......the drug cartels have all the guns they want....dittos the criminals in Europe who use fully automatic military rifles and grenades....you dope.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jan 2, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Exactly; we lead the industrialized world in both gun violence and firearm ownership. “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a  good guy with a gun” is a stupid argument. Comon sense gun
> laws are to reduce the number of bad guys with guns so ideally, only good  guys have easy access  to a gun.  But no. Gun a holics just want to appease firearm makers.


Correct. I think 2aGuy might be employed by Ruger, as he's posting adverts for them...😉
If you want to own a gun, you need proper training. People take driving lessons and have to pass a competence test before they get a licence to drive, so why not the same for guns? Any responsible gun owner would agree, I would think.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jan 2, 2022)

I'm in Spain at the moment, here's how Spanish gun law works

Ownership of firearms in Spain?​The Legislation on the use and ownership of firearms in Spain is probably one of the most restrictive in Europe. This is included in the Spanish constitution under article 149.26 where it is said that the Spanish government has exclusive competence control over production, sale, possession and use of firearms and explosives.
Spanish law, except in specific cases determined by Spanish authorities (mostly related to security forces or people in a situation of grave danger), considers the use of weapons only for Olympic shooting and other official shooting sports or hunting.
The possession of machine guns, submachine guns and any other kind of automatic weapons is strictly forbidden except for military personnel and elite police forces only within the context of their missions.
Can I obtain a licence for firearms?​In order to have a license for firearms you have to be of age and pass a theory exam and a psychological examination. You will have to store the weapons in a safe intended for this use.
*There are several licenses available:*

*Licence A*: All kinds of weapons except automatic and war weapons. This license is exclusive for members of the state and the security forces.
*Licence B*: Self defence, allowing the possession and use of handguns under special government authorisation.
*Licence C*: Ownership and possession of handguns in the context of private security duties.
*Licence D*: Licence specifically intended for big-game hunting allowing the use of rifles and multifunction shotguns.
*Licence E*: License specifically intended for small-game hunting (game no bigger than a fox), including shotguns.
*Licence F*: Focused on the use and possession of sport weapons and Olympic shooting sports, including pistols and carbines.
*Licence AE*: For muzzleloader weapons, specifically for collectors (if the weapons are in working conditions).
*License AEM* (_Autorización especial de Menores_, special authorization for minors): License for minors intended as a preparation for _license F_. This license is difficult to obtain, and regulate the strict supervision of the minor using the weapons.
How can I buy or sell a weapon?​Once the license is obtained, a weapon can be purchased in an armoury, nevertheless the purchaser cannot walk away with the new weapon. The armoury will have to send it to the new owner address using a specialized transport company.
Weapons can be sold to another person with a legitimate licence. The sale will have to be authorised and supervised by the Guardia Civil. After filling the forms and receiving the authorisations the seller will surrender the arm to the Guardia Civil. The buyer will then fetch collect it on the Guardia Civil premises.
Weapons can be lent to another person for a maximum time of 15 days provided that a form is filed at the Guardia Civil and the other person has the necessary licenses.
Can I use a firearm for self-defence?​Security professionals during their servicewhile working are allowed to use their calibre 38 handguns within a specific mission (they are not allowed to use any other weapon) and only for self-defence.
A private person can use a firearm only for hunting or for sport shooting. In very specific cases (people under threat or security officials) the government can authorise the use of a handgun for self-defence.
There are many cases of people with a license for sport or hunting, that after have used their weapon in acase of self-defence and then were sentenced for illegal use of firearms.

Spain hasn't had a peacetime mass shooting, Compare Spanish gun deaths with American, In Spain in 2017 there were 282 gun deaths (all causes) .58/100,000 popn, compared to USA 39,773 in the same year 12.21/100,000 popn.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jan 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Are you really this stupid, or are you trolling?
> 
> Mexico has one gun store, it is on a military base and only special people are allowed to access it.......the drug cartels have all the guns they want....dittos the criminals in Europe who use fully automatic military rifles and grenades....you dope.


Yes, Mexican drug cartels get all the guns they want, from the USA, where they are so easy to get.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jan 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Let's focus on gun deaths ....shall we.....2019
> 
> Children: ( age <1 to 14, stopping at 14 because 15 year old gang members begin to skew the data...)
> 
> ...


Yes, 269 unecessary and avoidable deaths.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> I'm in Spain at the moment, here's how Spanish gun law works
> 
> Ownership of firearms in Spain?​The Legislation on the use and ownership of firearms in Spain is probably one of the most restrictive in Europe. This is included in the Spanish constitution under article 149.26 where it is said that the Spanish government has exclusive competence control over production, sale, possession and use of firearms and explosives.
> Spanish law, except in specific cases determined by Spanish authorities (mostly related to security forces or people in a situation of grave danger), considers the use of weapons only for Olympic shooting and other official shooting sports or hunting.
> ...




*A private person can use a firearm only for hunting or for sport shooting. In very specific cases (people under threat or security officials) the government can authorise the use of a handgun for self-defence.*



Yes......make it so difficult that normal people can't afford the time or money to own or carry a gun......so women walk the streets and get raped, normal people can be robbed, beaten and stabbed....but, the rich and politically connected can hunt with their rifles and fowling pieces....good for spain.

You posted that as if it makes any sense.....


----------



## candycorn (Jan 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Yes, 269 unecessary and avoidable deaths.


Correct.

When they can itemize their gun deaths and we don't even notice our gun deaths....

Its clear that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Yes, 269 unecessary and avoidable deaths.




Lots of deaths are uneccessary and avoidable...like the women who are dragged from the bus stop or train station platform, beaten, raped and murdered....those are unecessary and avoidable too...but you don't want women to be able to stop those deaths......

More children are killed in drowning accidents than gun accidents.....645...yet we have pools, bathtubs and allow ocean and lake swimming.......

We have over 600 million guns and over 21.5 million Americans can carry guns in public for self defense.......and yet you would ban those guns over 269 murders....while  893 children were  murdered  by other means...........

Our problem is that we have a political party, the left wing, democrat party, judges, prosecutors and politicians constantly lowering the penalties for actual criminals using guns, releasing known gun offenders over and over again, no matter how many times they are caught and then they focus on normal gun owners who have shown over decades of ownership that they aren't the ones shooting people...

Your sense of priorities are screwed up beyond repair.....as a guy from a place where 15 million people were murdered by their governments at the hands of the German socialists, you really can't make any sane argument for giving the government control over guns...

They made the same arguments you made for surrendering their guns.....then 15 million of them were murdered by those same governments...

That you don't understand human nature and human history shows why we can't trust your judgement.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Yes, Mexican drug cartels get all the guns they want, from the USA, where they are so easy to get.




Actually, you show your ignorance here as well...we supply the Mexican government, they supply the drug cartels.....there is one gun store in all of Mexico, just like you want......the rules for getting into that gun store prohibit just about every Mexican citizen except for the rich and politically connected....just like you want....

And Mexico has a murder rate 3 times as high as we have.....

They also get their military weapons from China and Europe......


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Correct. I think 2aGuy might be employed by Ruger, as he's posting adverts for them...😉
> If you want to own a gun, you need proper training. People take driving lessons and have to pass a competence test before they get a licence to drive, so why not the same for guns? Any responsible gun owner would agree, I would think.




Governments didn't create licenses, then ban cars before they murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children in Europe....they licensed and banned guns, then murdered 15 million men, women and children....


----------



## Dagosa (Jan 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Correct. I think 2aGuy might be employed by Ruger, as he's posting adverts for them...😉
> If you want to own a gun, you need proper training. People take driving lessons and have to pass a competence test before they get a licence to drive, so why not the same for guns? Any responsible gun owner would agree, I would think.


EXACTLY 
We already have a workable solution. The fed firearms laws already restrict full auto firearms.
As a result, there are very few instances of full auto firms used in the commission of ANY CRIME. Of course the movies shows them used all the time which is totally bogus. They aren ‘t   used even though there are tens of thousands in the public domain. Simple regulation works for them and it would work for all firearms. THESE GUNAHOLICS are employed by all firearm makers to spread their BS.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> EXACTLY
> We already have a workable solution. The fed firearms laws already restrict full auto firearms.
> As a result, there are very few instances of full auto firms used in the commission of ANY CRIME. Of course the movies shows them used all the time which is totally bogus. They aren ‘t   used even though there are tens of thousands in the public domain. Simple regulation works for them and it would work for all firearms. THESE GUNAHOLICS are employed by all firearm makers to spread their BS.




Moron.....fully automatic military rifles are the preferred weapon among European criminals, along with grenades......fully automatic military weapons are illegal throughout the continent, as are grenades, and they are the preferred weapon of criminals there......

Our criminals prefer hand guns because they can hide them in the purse of their baby momma...or they used to...now that the democrat party has hamstrung the police, they simply carry the gun in their pants........they don't have to worry about the police anymore.....


----------



## Dagosa (Jan 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> I'm in Spain at the moment, here's how Spanish gun law works
> 
> Ownership of firearms in Spain?​The Legislation on the use and ownership of firearms in Spain is probably one of the most restrictive in Europe. This is included in the Spanish constitution under article 149.26 where it is said that the Spanish government has exclusive competence control over production, sale, possession and use of firearms and explosives.
> Spanish law, except in specific cases determined by Spanish authorities (mostly related to security forces or people in a situation of grave danger), considers the use of weapons only for Olympic shooting and other official shooting sports or hunting.
> ...


Yup..you can have guns for which only ligit uses are intended.,
You want to carry a gun, enlist in the arm forces, police force etc.


Consider Sweden which allows many gun owners…but.
Swedish gun laws – yes there are many guns in Sweden


There are actually a lot of guns in Sweden, mostly because there is a lot of hunting. ...
You cannot carry your gun around - only while you are hunting. ...
You keep your guns locked up. This is key. ..


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> EXACTLY
> We already have a workable solution. The fed firearms laws already restrict full auto firearms.
> As a result, there are very few instances of full auto firms used in the commission of ANY CRIME. Of course the movies shows them used all the time which is totally bogus. They aren ‘t   used even though there are tens of thousands in the public domain. Simple regulation works for them and it would work for all firearms. THESE GUNAHOLICS are employed by all firearm makers to spread their BS.




Hey....dumb shit....

A team at American University analyzed the impact of one such measure in Massachusetts and found stricter background checks and licensing policies made little to no difference in curbing violent crimes.
-------
How is Massachusetts cracking down on gun ownership?​*Massachusetts passed new background check requirements for firearms sold at gun shows or through private sales. *Lawmakers also created changes to firearm regulations by adopting new gun licensing procedures in 2014. The new law went into effect in January 2015.

No ‘consistent effect’ on crime rates​Using this approach, the research team was able to estimate, based on percentage of firearms licenses, that one to five percent of adult Massachusetts residents had a gunlicense.


*However, results also show the new gun control measures did not have a “consistent effect” on reducing four types of violent crimes — murder or manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery, and rape.*

*Notably, a one-percent increase in denied firearm licenses and denied firearm licenses following statutory disqualifications increased robberies by 7.3 and 8.9 percent, respectively.*
Massachusetts gun-control legislation had no impact on violent crime rates









						Massachusetts gun-control legislation had no impact on violent crime rates
					

The new gun control measures did not have a "consistent effect" on reducing rates of murder or manslaughter, assault, robbery, and rape.




					www.studyfinds.org


----------



## Dagosa (Jan 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Yes, Mexican drug cartels get all the guns they want, from the USA, where they are so easy to get.


EXACTLY. They are often used as “currency” for drugs.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Yup..you can have guns for which only ligit uses are intended.,
> You want to carry a gun, enlist in the arm forces, police force etc.
> 
> 
> ...




Are you really this much of an infant?

Criminals don't care about 1-4, and You mean Switzerland, not Sweden...cause Sweden is  having a little problem with criminals shooting up their cities with fully automatic military rifles and grenades...


Tell the rest of the class, genius........are fully automatic military rifles and grenades against the law in Sweden?

*Crime gangs in Sweden: What's behind the rise in the use of explosives?**

The frequent use of explosives is a relatively recent phenomenon, and criminologists told The Local that the blasts can be seen as part of an overall rise in violence and growing recklessness in these criminal networks.*

Amir Rostami, a police superintendent turned sociologist with a focus on criminal gangs, told The Local that so-called 'street gangs' are showing an increased tendency towards violence, and that this violence was becoming more severe when it took place.

"If previously they maybe fired one shot or shot someone in the legs, today it's more about AK47s, using more bullets, hand grenades and explosions that we didn't see before. ​​​I'd say that's the biggest shift we see – they're more reckless, they don't seem to care about the consequences," Rostami said.

Fatal shootings linked to criminal gangs have increased from around four per year in the early 1990s to over 40 in 2018. And while the blasts that have taken place in Sweden have caused no fatalities so far this year, they could be seen as a sign that the gangs are unafraid of causing damage and potentially harming people.
No, Sweden, hand grenade attacks aren’t an ‘image’ problem

In 2018 there were 162 bombings reported to police, and 93 reported in the first five months of this year, 30 more than during the same period in 2018. The level of attacks is _“extreme in a country that is not at war,”_ Crime Commissioner Gunnar Appelgren told SVT last year.
-------
The use of hand grenades is a purely Swedish phenomenon too, with no other country in Europe reporting their use on such a level, a police manager told Swedish Radio in 2016, a year after attacks first spiked.

The grenades used almost exclusively originate in the former Yugoslavia, and are sold in Sweden for around $100 per piece. But while only three hand grenades were thrown in Kosovo between 2013 and 2014, more than 20 have been used in Sweden every year since 2015.

More broadly, homicide has risen in Sweden, with more than 300 shootings reported last year, causing 45 deaths. Though homicide rates had been in decline since 2002, they again began trending upwards in 2015, as did rapes and sexual assaults, which more than tripled in the last four years.

Of course, 2015 was also the year in which Sweden flung open its doors to more than 160,000 asylum seekers, more per capita than any other European country.
-------

Dagens Nyheter pointed out that 90 percent of shooting perpetrators in Sweden are either first or second generation immigrants.​Bomb attacks are now a normal part of Swedish life | The Spectator​
Gun crime is also rampant, which BRA attributes to increased gangs, drug trafficking, and low confidence in the police.
---
In 2020, Sweden recorded more than 360 gun-involved incident, with 47 deaths and 117 people wounded.
After a long period of decline, gun violence steadily increased from the mid-2000s and continues to do so.
Shooting deaths more than doubled between 2011 and 2019 and now account for 40 per cent of violent deaths.
'The increase in gun homicide in Sweden is closely linked to criminal milieux in socially disadvantaged areas,' the report said.
Eighty per cent of shootings were linked to gangs, a significantly higher proportion than in other European countries. 

As 'bomb blast' injures 20, how Sweden is being plagued by explosions​=======​Sweden has gone from having one of the lowest rates of gun violence in Europe to having one of the highest, a report said on Wednesday, describing what one researcher called a "social contagion" of killings.​-----
The report said eight out of 10 shootings took place in a "criminal environment", with gang conflicts mentioned as one of the potential reasons for the trend. The drugs trade and low confidence towards the police in some parts of society were also cited as potential factors.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/social-contagion-sweden-sees-surge-deadly-shootings-2021-05-26/​


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> EXACTLY. They are often used as “currency” for drugs.




Wrong, dipshit...you don't have any clue....

The U.S. government supplies the Mexican military with rifles.........the Mexican military thugs, then sell those guns to the cartels.......the cartels also get their military grade weapons from China, and Europe, as well as other South American countries who also get military weapons from the U.S. government...

You dope....


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> EXACTLY. They are often used as “currency” for drugs.




The Drug cartels are billion dollar enterprises, they get whatever guns they want....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Just a general observation, wouldn't there be less gun crime in the USA if there were less guns in circulation and therefore easily obtained by these "criminals"?


In the US, from 1992-2017, the number of guns increased by ~25% while gun-related crime fell 50%
If your fewer guns = less gun-related crime hypothesis were sound, that would not be the case,.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> If you want to own a gun, you need proper training.


Indeed.   But that training cannot be a legal requirement for the ownership of the gun, else it infringes on our right.


Vagabond63 said:


> People take driving lessons and have to pass a competence test before they get a licence to drive, so why not the same for guns?


Surely, you already know the answer to this.


----------



## Dagosa (Jan 2, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Indeed.   But that training cannot be a legal requirement for the ownership of the gun, else it infringes on our right.
> 
> Surely, you already know the answer to this.


Are you serious ? Where do you live. Every square foot of land in the US firearms are regulated in some way and It infringes upon no ones right. That’s bogus. The Supreme Court has long held that none of our rights are absolute. None, nada, nix. If the state or federal government  want to institute a permit system for carry of firearms and it requires some form of training which our state has for decades, they do it. Wtf has constitutionality have to do with it. Geesus, we have access right to all our federal and state lands  in the nation, and you have to pay a toll or access them and in some cases, show you are qualified to access them. It’s been legal since the constitution was signed.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jan 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> *A private person can use a firearm only for hunting or for sport shooting. In very specific cases (people under threat or security officials) the government can authorise the use of a handgun for self-defence.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The rape (again! what is with your fetish about rape?) rate in Spain is roughly 1/10th that of the USA. In 2016 38 people were shot and killed in the whole of Spain (yes, Spain has gun crime!) In the same year the State of Rhode Island had 46 (lowest gun kills), Texas 3,353(highest) Approximately 15,000 Americans are killed with guns every year (not counting suicides and Police). Similar statistics apply to all the other crimes you mention. Controlling the general availability of firearms works in Spain, in the UK, in fact, most of Europe.

Oh, the majority of people who own guns in Spain are neither rich nor politically connected.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jan 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> But that training cannot be a legal requirement for the ownership of the gun, else it infringes on our right.


How?


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 4, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> How?


It forces people to pay the government to exercise a right.

We can't require people take a class or have to pay for a permit in order to vote either.

That's not how rights work.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 4, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> How?


It places an arbitrary and capricious precondition on the exercise of the right not inherent to same.


----------



## Dagosa (Jan 4, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> How?


Even though states have require training for CWP for decades, he’ll make up some shit.


----------



## Dagosa (Jan 4, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It forces people to pay the government to exercise a right.
> 
> We can't require people take a class or have to pay for a permit in order to vote either.
> 
> That's not how rights work.


That’s not very bright in light of it having been done for decades. It’s hilarious. Yes, in states that require voter ID to register to vote, which is nearly all for national elections, the voter at his own expense must provide a suitable ID to register to vote. The gov doesn’t pay for it. Dah. We have to show proof of training   For firearm permit in our state for over 40 plus years.


Are you delusional ? Even the Heller decision did not remove the requirement that Heller needed a permit he had to pay for as well as registering his hand gun, just to have it in his own home u locked.


Gunaholics don't make much sense.

Even the fed requires you pay a fee for a license to traffic in firearms that are regulated.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s not very bright in light of it having been done for decades. It’s hilarious. Yes, in states that require voter ID to register to vote, which is nearly all for national elections, the voter at his own expense must provide a suitable ID to register to vote. The gov doesn’t pay for it. Dah.



A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?
=======
The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.

A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."

Does this make sense to you?


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 4, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> How?




Any fee or tax on a Right is unConstitutional......

Murdoch v Pennsylvania:

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

*4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.*
*5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.
6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.
7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.*
*8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.
------*
*
Page 319 U. S. 108

The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."*
*It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

Also....training requirements are no different from a Literacy Test for the Right to vote..the democrat party in the United States used Literacy tests to deny blacks the Right to vote..........Literacy tests are unconstitutional, so any test for the exercise of a Right is unconstitutional.*


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jan 5, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> arbitrary and capricious precondition


Interesting, how is mandatory training in the safe use and keeping of firearms an "arbitrary and capricious precondition" same applies to a permit to own. If that's the case, you equally cannot ban criminals from owning firearms. Where does the 2nd ammendment state, "except for criminals"?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jan 5, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It forces people to pay the government to exercise a right.


You don't pay the government to learn how to drive a car, you pay a qualified instructor. Do you pay to take a driving test in the USA?


----------



## Dagosa (Jan 5, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Indeed.   But that training cannot be a legal requirement for the ownership of the gun, else it infringes on our right.
> 
> Surely, you already know the answer to this.


Everyone pays the issuing agency for permit and licensing fees.
Evern a dealer. No one has ever challenged and won the regulation requiring it. You talk like the people who work for the gov to issue these permits and licenses  do everything for nothing.
This is another indication how conservatives want everything for free. A bunch of free loaders where everything is handed over to them, while they cut taxes and fees. I suppose you think an Uber driver contracted with gov will take you to the nearest dealer and give you a free firearm of your choice because the constitution demands it.

The only way that shit is free, is if you enlist and are employed by the govt.
“A Type 1 Dealer’s license, the most common type of FFL, has a license cost of $200. The license is valid for three years. After that renewals for each subsequent three year period are $90.”

Thats where you’re confused. The right to bear arms applies to an organized militia, which is financed by local, state and federal govs. Join one if you want to practice your 2 a. Otherwise, we regulate literally, EVERYTHING YOU DO OR HAVE. Even free speech is regulated, and often requires a fee.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 5, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s not very bright in light of it having been done for decades. It’s hilarious. Yes, in states that require voter ID to register to vote, which is nearly all for national elections, the voter at his own expense must provide a suitable ID to register to vote. The gov doesn’t pay for it. Dah. We have to show proof of training   For firearm permit in our state for over 40 plus years.
> 
> 
> Are you delusional ? Even the Heller decision did not remove the requirement that Heller needed a permit he had to pay for as well as registering his hand gun, just to have it in his own home u locked.
> ...


Requiring voter ID is not the same thing.


An ID is required for daily living in the modern world and the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people already have some form of ID and for those that don;t already have one they most likely would be free.

And the selling of forearms isn't a protected right and those sales fall under the commerce clause.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 5, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> You don't pay the government to learn how to drive a car, you pay a qualified instructor. Do you pay to take a driving test in the USA?


Driving a car isn't a right, it is a privilege granted by  state governments and can be revoked at any time for just about any reason.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 5, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Interesting, how is mandatory training in the safe use and keeping of firearms an "arbitrary and capricious precondition" same applies to a permit to own. If that's the case, you equally cannot ban criminals from owning firearms. Where does the 2nd ammendment state, "except for criminals"?




It is used as an arbitrary precondition in Europe.....with rules and fees so high that normal people can't comply with them......we have already had experience in this area when the democrat party enacted fees and literacy tests to prevent blacks from being able to vote......training requirements and fees are now being used to deny people the ability to own and carry guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 5, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Interesting, how is mandatory training in the safe use and keeping of firearms an "arbitrary and capricious precondition"


My whole statement:
It places an arbitrary and capricious precondition on the exercise of the right not inherent to same.

"Training" necessitates standards.   Standards of training are arbitrary - what might constitute sufficient training to you might easily be seen as excising, excessive,  and/or unobtainable to people less phobic of firearms.   Thus, arbitrary.
"Capricious" simply means these standards can change at any time, on a whim.
And them there's "not inherent to the exercise" - nothing about the right to keep and bear arms held by the people necessitates that said people have some sort of training as a precondition to the exercise of same.


Vagabond63 said:


> same applies to a permit to own.


The requirement of a permit for the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms infringes upon that right in the same way a requirement for a permit to have an abortion or vote or go to church.
Rights to do not originate with the state and thus, the state has no standing to issue a permit -- that is, give permission - to exercise them at the basic level.


Vagabond63 said:


> If that's the case, you equally cannot ban criminals from owning firearms.


Non seq.   There's no necessary translation from one idea to the other.


Vagabond63 said:


> Where does the 2nd ammendment state, "except for criminals"?


Ah.  You are ignorant of 2A jurisprudence.  No surprise.
_*Lewis v. United States*_*, *445 U.S. 55 (1980
_*United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez*_, 494 U.S. 259 (1990),


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 5, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> You don't pay the government to learn how to drive a car, you pay a qualified instructor. Do you pay to take a driving test in the USA?


As you do not need a license to buy a car, own a car, possess a car or operatte a car on private property, or transpoert a car on public property, whatever poin tyou think you have here is moot.

Indeed - a person convicted of mulriple vehicular homicides can own as many cars as he wants.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 5, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Requiring voter ID is not the same thing.


The meaningful exercise of the right to vote depends on two things:
- The prospective voter is who he says he is
- The prospective voter is voting where he is required to vote

As the state has a compelling interest in protecting the meaningful right to vote, and the requirement for a prospective voter to produce valid state identification is the least restrictive means to do so, the requirement for an ID to vote is constitutionally sound.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jan 5, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> nothing about the right to keep and bear arms held by the people necessitates that said people have some sort of training as a precondition to the exercise of same.


"A well regulated militia..." Implies drill and training?


M14 Shooter said:


> Ah. You are ignorant of 2A jurisprudence. No surprise.


Nothing to do with the text of the 2nd amendment. Where Does the 2nd ammendment iteslf state, "except for criminals"?


M14 Shooter said:


> As you do not need a license to buy a car, own a car, possess a car or operatte a car on private property, or transpoert a car on public property, whatever poin tyou think you have here is moot.
> 
> Indeed - a person convicted of mulriple vehicular homicides can own as many cars as he wants.


Cam he drive them on public roads without a license?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jan 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> t is used as an arbitrary precondition in Europe.....with rules and fees so high that normal people can't comply with them....


More BS. Buying a rifle, a gun safe and getting a firearms certificate in the UK costs around $3-400 equivalent. whereas some of the cheapest rifles and handguns in the USA star at around $300, before you even consider gun safes (being a responsible gun owner, of course).


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 5, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> "A well regulated militia..." Implies drill and training?


Ah.  Again, you are a victim of your ignorance of US jurisprudence
_The Second Amendment  protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,_
As such, "Well regulated" modifies "militia" and thus has no effect on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Thus, I accept you concession re: "Arbuitrary and capricious"


Vagabond63 said:


> Nothing to do with the text of the 2nd amendment. Where Does the 2nd ammendment iteslf state, "except for criminals"?


You can ignore the jurisprudence , and the explanation contained therein, if you want, but it just means you don't really want an answer to your questiom.


Vagabond63 said:


> Cam he drive them on public roads without a license?


Irrelevant to the point.  
You want to equate driver's licenses to licenses for guns, but to do so, you must allow convicted felons to own guns, w/o restriction.


----------



## Dagosa (Jan 5, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Requiring voter ID is not the same thing.
> 
> 
> An ID is required for daily living in the modern world and the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people already have some form of ID and for those that don;t already have one they most likely would be free.
> ...


You can’t vote without registering first. You can’t register in any state in the union without providing a state acceptable ID at the voters expense. So, you can’t vote without providing an ID FIRST to register. What state do you live in that doesn’t require an ID to register before you can vote ? Dah.
I didn’t know “forearms” we’re for sale. What are you rambling about ?


----------



## Dagosa (Jan 5, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah.  Again, you are a victim of your ignorance of US jurisprudence
> _The Second Amendment  protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,_
> As such, "Well regulated" modifies "militia" and thus has no effect on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
> 
> ...


Can you even state the second amendment without picking and choosing only the phrases you want. Try it. Post the second amendment HERE.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 6, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> "A well regulated militia..." Implies drill and training?
> 
> Nothing to do with the text of the 2nd amendment. Where Does the 2nd ammendment iteslf state, "except for criminals"?
> 
> Cam he drive them on public roads without a license?


Not everyone who owns a gun is in a militia.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 6, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You can’t vote without registering first. You can’t register in any state in the union without providing a state acceptable ID at the voters expense. So, you can’t vote without providing an ID FIRST to register. What state do you live in that doesn’t require an ID to register before you can vote ? Dah.
> I didn’t know “forearms” we’re for sale. What are you rambling about ?


Almost everyone already had an ID and all calls for voter ID say that the ID will be free.  And without showing an ID at the place you vote the people at the polling place will not know you are who you say you are

And are you do dense you can't spot a simple typo?


----------

