# Second Amendment advocates would this change your mind?



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 2, 2022)

In an opinion piece found in the news and observer, this nut believes his words could bring us to a compromise.  😆
As for me I might pay him a visit and show him how wrong he is.


			https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article259852460.html


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2022)

He says:



> There is one functional feature of many “assault weapons” that, if regulated, could substantially reduce injuries and fatalities during mass-shootings — high-capacity magazines. A ban on such magazines would be a meaningful step to reduce the potential damage a firearm can cause in a mass shooting scenario.



I stopped reading there.  No, it wouldn't.  This guy needs to stick to psychology, because he sucks at being knowledgeable about firearms.


----------



## fncceo (Apr 2, 2022)

*"There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus round magazine."*

Unless, of course, the person or persons whom you're defending against have 30-round magazines.


----------



## Esdraelon (Apr 2, 2022)

It will NEVER be enough to satisfy those who fear guns as well as those who FEAR legally owned guns in American hands.  THAT is the last line.  Cross it and the party gets started.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 2, 2022)

daveman said:


> He says:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading there.  No, it wouldn't.  This guy needs to stick to psychology, because he sucks at being knowledgeable about firearms.


He wants us to compromise and step down to their level. My compromise ran out a long time ago.


----------



## Donald H (Apr 2, 2022)

The important question is, would denying those who want a black assault weapon to kill people, lower the rate of murder with gun in America?

I think it would because there would be less gratification for the killer if he was limited to using a gun that didn't look the part for a murder, and obviously be less efficient in killing large numbers of people. 

The professed good guy who wants to kill animals, kill songbirds,  or shoot at targets wouldn't be unduly affected by his ability to own an assault weapon. Even though the change would be demoralizing for those who shoot at human silouette targets and dream of an opportunity to shoot at the real thing.

How do I know? I've been there and found immature pleasure in the shooting sports. I know what motivates all sorts of people who crave guns. 
Ask a Canadian expert.

No compromise will ever be possible. An approach of taking away the incentive to own black assault weapons is the key. That will almost certainly have to start with demilitarizing America, and reducing the number of wars. In fact, that is in process now, due to the ineffectiveness of personal firearms in a war, as compared to bombs from a distance. 

Comments?


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> He wants us to compromise and step down to their level. My compromise ran out a long time ago.


Every single compromise has been from Second Amendment supporters.  Gun grabbers want Americans disarmed.  They'll do it all at once if they think they can; otherwise, they'll settle for chipping away at it a bit at a time.


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> How do I know? I've been there and found immature pleasure in the shooting sports. I know what motivates all sorts of people who crave guns.


No, you don't.  You have a stereotypical gun owner in your head you use as a reference.  It bears little resemblance to the real thing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> The important question is, would denying those who want a black assault weapon to kill people, lower the rate of murder with gun in America?
> 
> I think it would because there would be less gratification for the killer if he was limited to using a gun that didn't look the part for a murder, and obviously be less efficient in killing large numbers of people.
> 
> ...


There will never be any compromise no way in hell.


----------



## Donald H (Apr 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> There will never be any compromise no way in hell.


No there won't, unless if comes from the pro-gunners through maturity. Or as I suggest, through the lack of incentive to extend their masculinity with a gun. When the black guns are no longer cool, the incentive to own one will fade away.


----------



## Donald H (Apr 2, 2022)

daveman said:


> No, you don't.  You have a stereotypical gun owner in your head you use as a reference.  It bears little resemblance to the real thing.


No, I have a well rounded understanding on guns and plenty of experience in using them. I know very well what motivates young men to own black guns especially, and other guns less.

Those who prefer the black guns brag about it continuously and troll the forum with announcments of them buying another and another.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> No there won't, unless if comes from the pro-gunners through maturity. Or as I suggest, through the lack of incentive to extend their masculinity with a gun. When the black guns are no longer cool, the incentive to own one will fade away.


There is no unless there will not be any compromise.


----------



## pknopp (Apr 2, 2022)

The only thing that could convince me to support an amendment overturning the 2nd is if those who say they support the 2nd continue to support cops who shoot people for having a gun in their hand with absolutely no understanding of why that person has a gun.


----------



## Donald H (Apr 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> There is no unless there will not be any compromise.


You're not even capable of making sense now that your obsession is challenged.


----------



## Osiris-ODS (Apr 2, 2022)

"*There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus round magazine."*

Spoken by someone who has clearly never been in a firefight. All of that paper target practice accuracy tends to go out the window when the situation gets real and you have live rounds coming back at you. Unless of course you're a cold-blooded assassin, in which case you're probably not following the laws anyways.


----------



## miketx (Apr 2, 2022)

Look ma, no magazine period!


----------



## whitehall (Apr 2, 2022)

First of all the N.C. "News Observer's" claim that it prints opinions from readers, leaders and experts might be an exaggeration. It's much ado about nothing.


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Or as I suggest, through the lack of incentive to extend their masculinity with a gun.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> You're not even capable of making sense now that your obsession is challenged.


No you're believing that my rights can be compromised. So go fuck yourself.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 2, 2022)

pknopp said:


> The only thing that could convince me to support an amendment overturning the 2nd is if those who say they support the 2nd continue to support cops who shoot people for having a gun in their hand with absolutely no understanding of why that person has a gun.


Well sport you don't speak for me or the majority


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> The important question is, would denying those who want a black assault weapon to kill people, lower the rate of murder with gun in America?
> 
> I think it would because there would be less gratification for the killer if he was limited to using a gun that didn't look the part for a murder, and obviously be less efficient in killing large numbers of people.
> 
> ...


----------



## miketx (Apr 2, 2022)

daveman said:


> View attachment 625221


If that were true I would never have bought a gun with a 2 inch barrel.


bigrebnc1775 said:


> Well sport you don't speak for me or the majority


He speaks for his communist masters.


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> No, I have a well rounded understanding on guns...


No, you don't.


Donald H said:


> ...and plenty of experience in using them.


Doubtful.


Donald H said:


> I know very well what motivates young men to own black guns especially, and other guns less.


No, you don't.  You're defaulting to PENIS REPLACEMENT, which is stupid as hell and merely a projection of your own perceived inadequacies.


Donald H said:


> Those who prefer the black guns brag about it continuously and troll the forum with announcments of them buying another and another.


Perhaps this one will frighten you less:







You're operating under the mistaken assumption that you get to dictate what people may and may not want and have.  You're pathetically trying to shame people into giving up their scary black bullet hoses by claiming they're trying to make up for physical shortcomings.  That has never worked in the history of irrational gun haters, and it never will.  Your obsession with penises is your own issue.

Get it?  No one wants your validation.  You don't get a say.  Learn to accept your impotence in this matter and move on.


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> You're not even capable of making sense now that your obsession is challenged.


It makes perfect sense.  You just don't accept "no" for an answer.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> The important question is, would denying those who want a black assault weapon to kill people, lower the rate of murder with gun in America?
> 
> I think it would because there would be less gratification for the killer if he was limited to using a gun that didn't look the part for a murder, and obviously be less efficient in killing large numbers of people.
> 
> ...


What part of "shall not be abridged" don't you understand?


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> The important question is, would denying those who want a black assault weapon to kill people, lower the rate of murder with gun in America?
> 
> I think it would because there would be less gratification for the killer if he was limited to using a gun that didn't look the part for a murder, and obviously be less efficient in killing large numbers of people.
> 
> ...








.


----------



## pknopp (Apr 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Well sport you don't speak for me or the majority



 Seems you don't speak when it happens either.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 2, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Seems you don't speak when it happens either.


Translation please


----------



## pknopp (Apr 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Translation please



 We have posts here where that happens and those condemning it are few and far between.


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Translation please


He, too, thinks he should have a say in what people should be allowed to own.


----------



## pknopp (Apr 2, 2022)

daveman said:


> He, too, thinks he should have a say in what people should be allowed to own.



 I do. I believe people should be able to own any weapon they want.


----------



## JGalt (Apr 2, 2022)

fncceo said:


> *"There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus round magazine."*
> 
> Unless, of course, the person or persons whom you're defending against have 30-round magazines.



That right there. Criminals are always going to try to stay a step ahead of the good guys. That's why law-enforcement officers no longer carry antiquated wheel guns and why they have to carry AR carbines with 30-round magazines in their patrol cars.

The 1997 North Hollywood Shootout marked the turning point.

North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia


----------



## candycorn (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> No, I have a well rounded understanding on guns and plenty of experience in using them. I know very well what motivates young men to own black guns especially, and other guns less.
> 
> Those who prefer the black guns brag about it continuously and troll the forum with announcments of them buying another and another.



And of course the threats of bodily harm.... gun nuts love threatening people with guns.  It speaks to their lack of manhood.


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2022)

pknopp said:


> I do. I believe people should be able to own any weapon they want.


Especially if they're shooting cops?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 2, 2022)

pknopp said:


> We have posts here where that happens and those condemning it are few and far between.


Not sure what you're trying to say.


----------



## miketx (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> The important question is, would denying those who want a black assault weapon to kill people, lower the rate of murder with gun in America?


No, you filth would keep killing or use prohibited weapons.


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And of course the threats of bodily harm.... gun nuts love threatening people with guns.  It speaks to their lack of manhood.


Oh, you don't oppose gun violence.  You just want the government to do it for you, against people you hate.


----------



## pknopp (Apr 2, 2022)

daveman said:


> Especially if they're shooting cops?



 I don't support anyone shooting anyone. I do support people being able to protect themselves.


----------



## JGalt (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> No, I have a well rounded understanding on guns and plenty of experience in using them. I know very well what motivates young men to own black guns especially, and other guns less.
> 
> Those who prefer the black guns brag about it continuously and troll the forum with announcments of them buying another and another.



I'm not a big fan of black either. That's why I got my bullet hose in flat dark earth color. It's a much more natural color.


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2022)

pknopp said:


> I don't support anyone shooting anyone. I do support people being able to protect themselves.


Mostly against cops, apparently.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Apr 2, 2022)

Tell the Ukrainian people they need to turn in all their magazines that hold over ten rounds or because you find the firearm scary looking and see how they react.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## pknopp (Apr 2, 2022)

daveman said:


> Mostly against cops, apparently.



 If that be the case, yes. It's why the Founders made sure there was a 2nd Amendment.


----------



## JGalt (Apr 2, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And of course the threats of bodily harm.... gun nuts love threatening people with guns.  It speaks to their lack of manhood.



It speaks far more about the lack of manhood or womanhood that you liberals feel threatened by anything and everything. How the hell do you folks even function, being so afraid of everything all the time?


----------



## Colin norris (Apr 2, 2022)

Esdraelon said:


> It will NEVER be enough to satisfy those who fear guns


Why would I fear guns when I can own one just like you? What is this fear you speak of?  Are you suggesting those without guns might start a revolution and are frightened of you because you have a gun? 
The real responsible people in America don't need a gun. They gave the government on their side and you are but a flea on a dog's back. 



Esdraelon said:


> as well as those who FEAR legally owned guns in American hands.  THAT is the last line.  Cross it and the party gets started.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> In an opinion piece found in the news and observer, this nut believes his words could bring us to a compromise.  😆
> As for me I might pay him a visit and show him how wrong he is.
> 
> 
> https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article259852460.html



The guy is a moron….magazine capacity has no bearing on the number killed in shootings, in particular mass public shootings….he simply reveals his wilful ignorance in the topic.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 2, 2022)

fncceo said:


> *"There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus round magazine."*
> 
> Unless, of course, the person or persons whom you're defending against have 30-round magazines.



Not even that….who is he to declare that my life or those of my family are only allowed 10 chances to stop a violent rapist, Robert or killer?


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> The important question is, would denying those who want a black assault weapon to kill people, lower the rate of murder with gun in America?
> 
> I think it would because there would be less gratification for the killer if he was limited to using a gun that didn't look the part for a murder, and obviously be less efficient in killing large numbers of people.
> 
> ...



You are an idiot with no understanding of the topic


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 2, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And of course the threats of bodily harm.... gun nuts love threatening people with guns.  It speaks to their lack of manhood.


Care to quote a "gun nut" threatening someone with bodily harm?


----------



## ReinyDays (Apr 2, 2022)

Varmint rifle ... small bore, medium charge gives a flat trajectory ... high capacity magazine and semi-automatic because varmints come in packs ... the 5.56 NATO round is good for squirrel-sized varmint up to ... welll ... human-sized varmints ... but not recommended for bear-sized varmints ...

Still less than $100 at your local Walmart for the thing them Caucasian boys made, and they got their kill-count up in the hundreds ... not this pussy half dozen or so one gets with an AR-15 ...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 2, 2022)

‘It’s time to stop obsessing over the nebulous term “assault weapon” and the cosmetic features that qualify a firearm as an “assault weapon.”’ _ibid_

This is true – a pistol grip, collapsible stock, and bayonet lug have nothing to do with the lethality of an AR 15, and their prohibition is truly ridiculous.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Second Amendment advocate


Nonsense term.

Those who support a ban on high-capacity magazines are likewise Second Amendment advocates, given the fact that such bans do not violate the Constitution and have not been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

To advocate for firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to be ‘anti’- Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> He wants us to compromise and step down to their level. My compromise ran out a long time ago.


For you and others on the right that would be a giant step up.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 2, 2022)

pknopp said:


> The only thing that could convince me to support an amendment overturning the 2nd is if those who say they support the 2nd continue to support cops who shoot people for having a gun in their hand with absolutely no understanding of why that person has a gun.


Particularly when those people who lawfully have a gun are black.

Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy and racism.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 2, 2022)

Esdraelon said:


> It will NEVER be enough to satisfy those who fear guns as well as those who FEAR legally owned guns in American hands.  THAT is the last line.  Cross it and the party gets started.


It has nothing to do with ‘fearing’ guns – that’s a lie.

However misguided and ineffective, those who support high-capacity magazine bans do not ‘fear’ guns nor do they advocate ‘banning’ guns.


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2022)

pknopp said:


> If that be the case, yes. It's why the Founders made sure there was a 2nd Amendment.


Would you like to make the case that every person shot by a cop was no danger to the cop or civilians?


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Why would I fear guns when I can own one just like you? What is this fear you speak of?  Are you suggesting those without guns might start a revolution and are frightened of you because you have a gun?
> The real responsible people in America don't need a gun. They gave the government on their side and you are but a flea on a dog's back.


Bootlicker.


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Particularly when those people who lawfully have a gun are black.
> 
> Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy and racism.


I support everyone's right to own firearms.  Race has nothing to do with it, and you're a moron for saying it does.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Second Amendment advocates would this change your mind?


No.

The police do not seem to agree with his claim that no one needs more than a ten round magazine for defense, because they keep using 20 round handgun magazines and 30 round rifle magazines.


----------



## Colin norris (Apr 3, 2022)

daveman said:


> Bootlicker.


Stop stalking me rambo.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

fncceo said:


> *"There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus round magazine."*
> 
> Unless, of course, the person or persons whom you're defending against have 30-round magazines.


No fair. You’re using logic!


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 3, 2022)

Donald H said:


> The important question is, would denying those who want a black assault weapon to kill people, lower the rate of murder with gun in America?
> I think it would because there would be less gratification for the killer if he was limited to using a gun that didn't look the part for a murder, and obviously be less efficient in killing large numbers of people.
> The professed good guy who wants to kill animals, kill songbirds,  or shoot at targets wouldn't be unduly affected by his ability to own an assault weapon. Even though the change would be demoralizing for those who shoot at human silouette targets and dream of an opportunity to shoot at the real thing.
> How do I know? I've been there and found immature pleasure in the shooting sports. I know what motivates all sorts of people who crave guns.
> ...


I think you are confused.  Assault weapons were all but outlawed 88 years ago.  They are already not a factor US murder rates.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 3, 2022)

daveman said:


> No, you don't.  You have a stereotypical gun owner in your head you use as a reference.  It bears little resemblance to the real thing.


There is no immature pleasure in the shooting sports.  They are like any difficult endeavor.  You get pleasure from mastering it.  The pleasure is no different from sailing well, flying well, or driving a fast car well.  I suppose it's the same as golf, backpacking or cycling, but I don't do any of those things.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Those who support a ban on high-capacity magazines are likewise Second Amendment advocates, given the fact that such bans do not violate the Constitution and have not been invalidated by the Supreme Court.


Such bans do violate the Constitution.

20 round handgun magazines and 30 round rifle magazines are clearly appropriate for self defense, and we have the right to have weapons that are appropriate for self defense.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 3, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And of course the threats of bodily harm.... gun nuts love threatening people with guns.  It speaks to their lack of manhood.


Would you prefer we threaten you with knives, clubs or our hands?  Guns make weak, untrained people like you less likely to be victims of strong, trained people.  When might makes right, alpha males rule.


----------



## daveman (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Stop stalking me rambo.


In other words, you want to be able to say any stupid shit you want and nobody is allowed to call you on it.

How's that working out for you, kid?


----------



## candycorn (Apr 3, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Would you prefer we threaten you with knives, clubs or our hands?  Guns make weak, untrained people like you less likely to be victims of strong, trained people.  When might makes right, alpha males rule.



I'd prefer they don't offer the hilarious threats at all.  In no way do I worry about physical harm from these losers on the internet.  Its just a sign of how lessened we have become as a people when hate is the coin of the realm.


----------



## Colin norris (Apr 3, 2022)

daveman said:


> In other words, you want to be able to say any stupid shit you want and nobody is allowed to call you on it.
> 
> How's that working out for you, kid?


I think I've made myself clear before but for the sake of the slow learners like you.  
I don't care what you say. My opinion is good enough for me and if you don't like it, get a ticket, get inline and kiss my arse. 

See how that fits in with you.


----------



## scruffy (Apr 3, 2022)

candycorn said:


> I'd prefer they don't offer the hilarious threats at all.  In no way do I worry about physical harm from these losers on the internet.  Its just a sign of how lessened we have become as a people when hate is the coin of the realm.


Tell that to the Trump haters.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> For you and others on the right that would be a giant step up.


Fuck off you have no opinion here


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> I think I've made myself clear before but for the sake of the slow learners like you.
> I don't care what you say. My opinion is good enough for me and if you don't like it, get a ticket, get inline and kiss my arse.
> 
> See how that fits in with you.


Opinions are like assholes everybody has one.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

candycorn said:


> I'd prefer they don't offer the hilarious threats at all.  In no way do I worry about physical harm from these losers on the internet.  Its just a sign of how lessened we have become as a people when hate is the coin of the realm.


So everything said about Jan 6 is bullshit??!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

daveman said:


> In other words, you want to be able to say any stupid shit you want and nobody is allowed to call you on it.
> 
> How's that working out for you, kid?


That's how they believe they can make their points valid. "No resistance I must be right" lol


----------



## Colin norris (Apr 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Opinions are like assholes everybody has one.


You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your _informed _opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. Except arseholes like you. 
Ignorance is ignorance and nothing of value can be derived from it. 
Have another go.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your _informed _opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. Except arseholes like you.
> Ignorance is ignorance and nothing of value can be derived from it.
> Have another go.


When my opinion is correct my opinion trumps the wrong opinion. Such as yours.


----------



## Colin norris (Apr 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> When my opinion is correct my opinion trumps the wrong opinion. Such as yours.


Self assessment is no assessment. 
You opinion has the same validity as pure air.
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Care to quote a "gun nut" threatening someone with bodily harm?


Anyone who doesn't thinks as candy corn always makes her feel threaten.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Self assessment is no assessment.
> You opinion has the same validity as pure air.
> All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.


No it's called experience training and common sense. Which I have, real world time tested experience.
ETCS


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 3, 2022)

Donald H said:


> The important question is, would denying those who want a black assault weapon to kill people, lower the rate of murder with gun in America?
> 
> I think it would because there would be less gratification for the killer if he was limited to using a gun that didn't look the part for a murder, and obviously be less efficient in killing large numbers of people.
> 
> ...


LOL ALMOST NO murders are committed with the supposed assault rifle. of ALL rifles less then 400 murders a year.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your _informed _opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. Except arseholes like you.
> Ignorance is ignorance and nothing of value can be derived from it.
> Have another go.


Blart has turned crazy opinions and lying into an artform.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Blart has turned crazy opinions and lying into an artform.


Projection is a leftist thing.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> In an opinion piece found in the news and observer, this nut believes his words could bring us to a compromise.  😆
> As for me I might pay him a visit and show him how wrong he is.
> 
> 
> https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article259852460.html


A considerable number of proponents of gun control seem to know very little about the firearms they seek to regulate and so often sound ignorant when discussing gun control.

Magazine size is irrelevant.

It takes literally less than 2 seconds to swap a magazine.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> A considerable number of proponents of gun control seem to know very little about the firearms they seek to regulate and so often sound ignorant when discussing gun control.
> 
> Magazine size is irrelevant.
> 
> It takes literally less than 2 seconds to swap a magazine.


It depends on the person how fast they can swap a magazine out.  I can do a mag exchange in less than a second. Someone with less experience will take longer.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It depends on the person how fast they can swap a magazine out.  I can do a mag exchange in less than a second. Someone with less experience will take longer.


Which is why I said 2 seconds.

Even a complete newbie can change a magazine in 2 seconds after a couple hours on the range


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

The proponents of gun control know they can't get rid of guns in one legislative sweep, so they must do it in increments. Once they have achieved one targeted goal then they move to the next one. They keep moving forward until the second amendment protected right is all but gone.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Which is why I said 2 seconds.
> 
> Even a complete newbie can change a magazine in 2 seconds after a couple hours on the range


True.


----------



## pknopp (Apr 3, 2022)

daveman said:


> Would you like to make the case that every person shot by a cop was no danger to the cop or civilians?



 Why?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Why?


Make the case.


----------



## pknopp (Apr 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Make the case.



 Why would I? I have no obligation to address your (or others) attempts at deflection.

 Valid shooting.

Shorewood police shooting: Man shot, killed after firing on officers outside hotel, police say

 Not valid.

San Jose Police Wound Black Man Who Broke Up Bar Fight


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Why would I? I have no obligation to address your (or others) attempts at deflection.
> 
> Valid shooting.
> 
> ...


Oh I see one link identifies the race and one doesn't.


----------



## pknopp (Apr 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Oh I see one link identifies the race and one doesn't.



 I suppose that is what you would see.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

pknopp said:


> I suppose that is what you would see.


No it's what I read from your links.


----------



## pknopp (Apr 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No it's what I read from your links.



 I'm sure you did.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

pknopp said:


> I'm sure you did.


I didn't write the news headline.
I didn't use the link.
You used the links. You used the one to fit your racist views


----------



## pknopp (Apr 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I didn't write the news headline.
> I didn't use the link.
> You used the links. You used the one to fit your racist views



 You went looking for race, not me. You can't do it. You can't say "yes they shot an innocent man with a gun".


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

pknopp said:


> You went looking for race, not me. You can't do it. You can't say "yes they shot an innocent man with a gun".


I didn't open the link it was in the link head line stupid. Do you actually read what you post?


----------



## pknopp (Apr 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I didn't open the link it was in the link head line stupid. Do you actually read what you post?



 I understand. We are not disagreeing. You aren't interested in the facts, only in the race of those involved.


----------



## BlackSand (Apr 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> In an opinion piece found in the news and observer, this nut believes his words could bring us to a compromise.  😆
> As for me I might pay him a visit and show him how wrong he is.
> 
> 
> https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article259852460.html


.

It is impossible to reach a compromise, if one entity in the compromise has nothing to offer in exchange.

If the author would like to re-establish the proposal as regulations enforced through popular consent and mob rule ...
That may be a more appropriate way of framing their ideas.

.​


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> It is impossible to reach a compromise, if one entity in the compromise has nothing to offer in exchange.
> 
> ...


It's a good thing we don't live in a democracy


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> In an opinion piece found in the news and observer, this nut believes his words could bring us to a compromise.  😆
> As for me I might pay him a visit and show him how wrong he is.
> 
> 
> https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article259852460.html


That cock sucking motherfucker can eat a bullet.

No, you fucking cock suckers, we're going the other way or we're going to war.

Machine guns or Valhalla.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nonsense term.
> 
> Those who support a ban on high-capacity magazines are likewise Second Amendment advocates,



Wrong.  Banning so-called "high-capacity magazines" ios a violation of the 2nd Amendment.  

You gun control wackos post idiocies like this and then expect people to take you seriously.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> given the fact that such bans do not violate the Constitution and have not been invalidated by the Supreme Court.


They sure as hell do violate the Constitution.  The court has let slide numerous violations of the Constitution, so that proves nothing.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> To advocate for firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to be ‘anti’- Second Amendment.



There are no regulatory measures consistent with the Second Amendment


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It has nothing to do with ‘fearing’ guns – that’s a lie.
> 
> However misguided and ineffective, those who support high-capacity magazine bans do not ‘fear’ guns nor do they advocate ‘banning’ guns.


They almost always support banning guns.


----------



## Resnic (Apr 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> In an opinion piece found in the news and observer, this nut believes his words could bring us to a compromise.  😆
> As for me I might pay him a visit and show him how wrong he is.
> 
> 
> https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article259852460.html



As always I point to Switzerland.

The country has gun ownership rivaling America's, but is always at or near the top for lack of gun related crime in all of Europe.

So what makes them different than us?

Well they have a less diverse society where people who want to become citizens have to fluently speak the language, conform to their society and customs. So their people are more familiar with eachother and more comfortable. They have fantastic educations health care and employment rates. And they have a criminal and justice system that punishes criminals. 

America is lacking all of those things.

Guns are inanimate objects. Our society is the problem, not the guns.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 3, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Such bans do violate the Constitution.
> 
> 20 round handgun magazines and 30 round rifle magazines are clearly appropriate for self defense, and we have the right to have weapons that are appropriate for self defense.


To oppose perfectly Constitutional firearm regulatory measures is not to ‘advocate’ for the Second Amendment – which is why the term is idiocy.

To advocate for the Second Amendment is to support Second Amendment jurisprudence, to acknowledge the fact that the Amendment is not ‘absolute,’ and to acknowledge the fact that government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right consistent with that jurisprudence.

Indeed, conservatives’ hostility toward Second Amendment jurisprudence renders them opponents of the Second Amendment, not ‘advocates.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 3, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Wrong.  Banning so-called "high-capacity magazines" ios a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You gun control wackos post idiocies like this and then expect people to take you seriously.
> 
> ...


The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions – absent such a ruling, magazine capacity restrictions are perfectly Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment, consistent with the doctrine of presumed Constitutionality (see _US v. Morrison_ (2000)).

That a law might be flawed and ineffective – such as high-capacity magazine bans – doesn’t make the law un-Constitutional.

Because magazine capacity restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment case law, and don’t violate the Second Amendment, to advocate for magazine capacity restrictions is to likewise advocate for the Second Amendment.

What you and others on the right might ‘think’ or ‘feel’ about magazine capacity restrictions is legally irrelevant; that you don’t like magazine capacity restrictions doesn’t make them ‘unlawful,’ and places you at odd with Second Amendment caselaw and the Amendment itself – that’s not ‘advocacy.’


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions – absent such a ruling, magazine capacity restrictions are perfectly Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment, consistent with the doctrine of presumed Constitutionality (see _US v. Morrison_ (2000)).
> 
> That a law might be flawed and ineffective – such as high-capacity magazine bans – doesn’t make the law un-Constitutional.
> 
> ...




Wrong, the did so in Heller and Caetano.....and Scalia in his opinion in Friedman also went into more detail after his ruling in Heller....

30 round magazines are not dangerous or unusual, and they are a common item...these features, according to Heller, make them beyond the reach of petty fascists like you...


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions – absent such a ruling, magazine capacity restrictions are perfectly Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment, consistent with the doctrine of presumed Constitutionality (see _US v. Morrison_ (2000)).
> 
> That a law might be flawed and ineffective – such as high-capacity magazine bans – doesn’t make the law un-Constitutional.
> 
> ...




*Because magazine capacity restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment case law, and don’t violate the Second Amendment, to advocate for magazine capacity restrictions is to likewise advocate for the Second Amendment.

Allow me to demonstrate how stupid this is....*

*Word and page limits for books, columns, magazine articles and internet posts do not violate the First Amendment...to advocate for word and page limit restrictions in publications, in particular political publications is likewise to advocate for the first amendment....*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 3, 2022)

Resnic said:


> As always I point to Switzerland.


And as always you exhibit your ignorance.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 3, 2022)

Resnic said:


> As always I point to Switzerland.
> 
> The country has gun ownership rivaling America's, but is always at or near the top for lack of gun related crime in all of Europe.
> 
> ...


More proof that no benefits from "diversity."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wrong, the did so in Heller and Caetano.....and Scalia in his opinion in Friedman also went into more detail after his ruling in Heller....
> 
> 30 round magazines are not dangerous or unusual, and they are a common item...these features, according to Heller, make them beyond the reach of petty fascists like you...


What part of “the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions” do you not understand.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And as always you exhibit your ignorance.
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.


How is it false?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> *Because magazine capacity restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment case law, and don’t violate the Second Amendment, to advocate for magazine capacity restrictions is to likewise advocate for the Second Amendment.
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate how stupid this is....
> 
> Word and page limits for books, columns, magazine articles and internet posts do not violate the First Amendment...to advocate for word and page limit restrictions in publications, in particular political publications is likewise to advocate for the first amendment....*


The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What part of “the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions” do you not understand.


Earlier you claimed that "magazine capacity restrictions" are perfectly Constitutional.  How can that be of the SC has never ruled on them?


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.


That's leftwing horseshit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.


Wrong you keep showing your ignorance about the job of the judicial branch. Only the legislative branch has a say of the existence of the constitution. The judicial branch only has a say over voted in laws.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 3, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Earlier you claimed that "magazine capacity restrictions" are perfectly Constitutional.  How can that be of the SC has never ruled on them?


CJ pulls shit from his ass like a monkey and flings it to see if it will stick.


----------



## Resnic (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And as always you exhibit your ignorance.
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.



Estimated there are 41 people who own atleast 1 gun for every 100. And that's only what they know of or guess are owned. It's a guarantee the number in reality is higher.





__





						Guns in Switzerland — Firearms, gun law and gun control
					

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in Switzerland, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development




					www.gunpolicy.org
				




Gun related deaths per 1000 people is 3.



			Gun Deaths by Country 2023
		


Switzerland crime rates are always below 1% per 1000 people. Granted this chart stops at 2018 but it's always below 1%. Later when I have more time I'll find a current one.





__





						Switzerland Crime Rate & Statistics 1990-2022
					

Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does...




					www.macrotrends.net
				




Swiss diversity is 69% Swiss and next runner up is Germans who still are not that different from them, and all the other groups make up 3% or less.









						Switzerland Demographics Profile
					





					www.indexmundi.com
				




Swiss population of the population averages 80% employment rates, it doesn't factor out children, handicapped either. 





__





						Switzerland Employment Rate - 2022 Data - 2023 Forecast - 1996-2021 Historical - Chart
					

Employment Rate in Switzerland increased to 79.40 percent in the third quarter of 2021 from 78.50 percent in the second quarter of 2021. Employment Rate in Switzerland averaged 79.16 percent from 1996 until 2021, reaching an all time high of 81.30 percent in the fourth quarter of 2016 and a...




					tradingeconomics.com
				




I'd go on but I pretty much have proven all my statements are correct.


----------



## daveman (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> I think I've made myself clear before but for the sake of the slow learners like you.
> I don't care what you say. My opinion is good enough for me and if you don't like it, get a ticket, get inline and kiss my arse.
> 
> See how that fits in with you.


So...you're still going to whine like a little bitch.

Must be a day ending in Y.


----------



## daveman (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your _informed _opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. Except arseholes like you.
> Ignorance is ignorance and nothing of value can be derived from it.
> Have another go.


Wow, are YOU insanely wrong.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What part of “the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions” do you not understand.




Heller ruled on it..... 30 round magazines are in common use.......they are not dangerous or unusual....Heller and Caetano make your post stupid.


----------



## daveman (Apr 3, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Why?


Never mind.


----------



## daveman (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> To oppose perfectly Constitutional firearm regulatory measures is not to ‘advocate’ for the Second Amendment – which is why the term is idiocy.
> 
> To advocate for the Second Amendment is to support Second Amendment jurisprudence, to acknowledge the fact that the Amendment is not ‘absolute,’ and to acknowledge the fact that government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right consistent with that jurisprudence.
> 
> Indeed, conservatives’ hostility toward Second Amendment jurisprudence renders them opponents of the Second Amendment, not ‘advocates.’


Wow, what a bootlicker.


----------



## daveman (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What you and others on the right might ‘think’ or ‘feel’ about magazine capacity restrictions is legally irrelevant; that you don’t like magazine capacity restrictions doesn’t make them ‘unlawful,’ and places you at odd with Second Amendment caselaw and the Amendment itself – that’s not ‘advocacy.’


What you and others on the left might ‘think’ or ‘feel’ about firearms in general is legally irrelevant.

If someone wants you disarmed, it's only because he wants to harm you.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> To oppose perfectly Constitutional firearm regulatory measures is not to ‘advocate’ for the Second Amendment


True, but no one is doing that.

What we oppose are unconstitutional regulations that violate our civil liberties (and worse, that violate our civil liberties for no reason).




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> To advocate for the Second Amendment is to support Second Amendment jurisprudence,


Only in such cases where the jurisprudence is legitimate.  If some court rules that it is OK to to disregard the Constitution, it is OK to oppose that ruling.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> to acknowledge the fact that the Amendment is not ‘absolute,’


That is not a fact.  If a law conflicts with the Second Amendment, that law is unconstitutional.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> and to acknowledge the fact that government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right consistent with that jurisprudence.


Limits and restrictions consistent with the Second Amendment itself.

Again, if some court rules that it is OK to disregard the Constitution, it is likewise OK to oppose that ruling.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indeed, conservatives’ hostility toward Second Amendment jurisprudence renders them opponents of the Second Amendment, not ‘advocates.’


No such hostility on the part of conservatives.  It is progressives who are always complaining about the Heller ruling.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions


Yet.

But now that they are starting to enforce the Second Amendment, that moment is coming sooner than you might think.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> absent such a ruling, magazine capacity restrictions are perfectly Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment, consistent with the doctrine of presumed Constitutionality (see _US v. Morrison_ (2000)).


That is incorrect.  Unconstitutional laws are still unconstitutional even if the courts aren't striking them down.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That a law might be flawed and ineffective – such as high-capacity magazine bans – doesn’t make the law un-Constitutional.


What makes the law unconstitutional is the fact that it violates our civil liberties.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Because magazine capacity restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment case law, and don’t violate the Second Amendment, to advocate for magazine capacity restrictions is to likewise advocate for the Second Amendment.


Magazine capacity restrictions do violate the Second Amendment unless they are loose enough to allow 20 round handgun magazines and 30 round rifle magazines.

Advocating to violate the Second Amendment is not advocating for the Second Amendment.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What you and others on the right might ‘think’ or ‘feel’ about magazine capacity restrictions is legally irrelevant;


That is incorrect.  Violating our civil liberties is against the law.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> that you don’t like magazine capacity restrictions doesn’t make them ‘unlawful,’


What makes them unlawful is the fact that they violate our civil liberties.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> and places you at odd with Second Amendment caselaw and the Amendment itself – that’s not ‘advocacy.’


That is incorrect.  Opposing violations of the Second Amendment does not place me at odds with the Second Amendment.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And as always you exhibit your ignorance.
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.


Nonsense.  How is a comparison with Switzerland fallacious??


----------



## daveman (Apr 3, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> True, but no one is doing that.
> 
> What we oppose are unconstitutional regulations that violate our civil liberties (and worse, that violate our civil liberties for no reason).
> 
> ...


Jones wants you to shut up and get on the boxcar.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 3, 2022)

daveman said:


> View attachment 625221



What the hell kind of penises is Shaun King seeing?!  Have penises changed radically since I got married?!


----------



## daveman (Apr 3, 2022)

Cecilie1200 said:


> What the hell kind of penises is Shaun King seeing?!  Have penises changed radically since I got married?!


Not to speak of, no.  I think Shaun (or as I like to call him, Talcum-X) has an obsession.  Many gun-grabbers do.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Apr 3, 2022)

Esdraelon said:


> It will NEVER be enough to satisfy those who fear guns as well as those who FEAR legally owned guns in American hands.  THAT is the last line.  Cross it and the party gets started.



   As if they haven't already crossed hundreds of "do not cross" lines.....






But hey...I'm sure the gun grabbers are shaking in their boots over this one.
One thing about the entire Right wing.......





Sorry....no party.  That's a fantasy.  The Right Wing's version of saying something that makes them "Feel Good"
The Tuff guy "Gun Card" has been overplayed just like the Race card.
A little secret about the Right Wing.....they are only brave until the thing they shoot at........can shoot back.

No one is intimidated.



BrokeLoser said:


> Easy now...I side with Conservatives, I vote with Conservatives BUT they are the most nutless, spinless, big mouth pieces of shit that ever were. Come on man...they didn’t have the balls to keep heterosexual white Christians cool in a nation founded, built, run and funded by heterosexual white Christians. The Left has owned their sackless asses for decades....Sad but true.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 3, 2022)

daveman said:


> Jones wants you to shut up and get on the boxcar.


Reminds me of one of Oleg Volk's classic memes.




__





						Loading…
					





					www.a-human-right.com


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 3, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> As if they haven't already crossed hundreds of "do not cross" lines.....


Fake news.  No such lines have been crossed.

What always happens is:
a) The Freedom Haters demand to violate the Second Amendment in some way.
b) The NRA says no.
c) Congress sides with the NRA.
d) The Freedom Haters go away and whine to themselves without achieving anything.

A, B, C, D.  Regular as clockwork.


----------



## Batcat (Apr 3, 2022)

With just a little practice a shooter can swap magazines very quickly.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Apr 3, 2022)

A shooter with 10 round magazines will just have to change magazines more often.  It won't make a damn bit of difference.  But, another failed law is the objective, because it takes us one step closer to an all out ban.


----------



## Osiris-ODS (Apr 3, 2022)

miketx said:


> Look ma, no magazine period!


The guy is a legend.


----------



## Osiris-ODS (Apr 3, 2022)

Batcat said:


> With just a little practice a shooter can swap magazines very quickly.


I never use the slide release lever to drop the slide forward like she does. I was taught to always rack the slide, even on a new magazine when the slide is locked back.


----------



## Batcat (Apr 3, 2022)

Osiris-ODS said:


> I never use the slide release lever to drop the slide forward like she does. I was taught to always rack the slide, even on a new magazine when the slide is locked back.


A retired police armorer told me to always rack the slide rather than use the release lever.


----------



## daveman (Apr 4, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> A shooter with 10 round magazines will just have to change magazines more often.  It won't make a damn bit of difference.  But, another failed law is the objective, because it takes us one step closer to an all out ban.


NO NO GUISE JUST _ONE MORE LAW_ AND THE CRIMINALS WILL START OBEYING THEM PINKIE SWEAR

Too bad the gun-grabbers aren't interested in disarming only criminals.  No, they want the law-abiding disarmed.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Apr 4, 2022)

daveman said:


> NO NO GUISE JUST _ONE MORE LAW_ AND THE CRIMINALS WILL START OBEYING THEM PINKIE SWEAR
> 
> Too bad the gun-grabbers aren't interested in disarming only criminals.  No, they want the law-abiding disarmed.


They want to disarm the law abiding citizens disarmed more than they do the criminals.


----------



## daveman (Apr 4, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> They want to disarm the law abiding citizens disarmed more than they do the criminals.


The criminals will reliably vote Democrat.  Law-abiding gun owners will not roll over for Democrat tyranny.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> To oppose perfectly Constitutional firearm regulatory measures is not to ‘advocate’ for the Second Amendment – which is why the term is idiocy.
> 
> To advocate for the Second Amendment is to support Second Amendment jurisprudence, to acknowledge the fact that the Amendment is not ‘absolute,’ and to acknowledge the fact that government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right consistent with that jurisprudence.
> 
> Indeed, conservatives’ hostility toward Second Amendment jurisprudence renders them opponents of the Second Amendment, not ‘advocates.’


The only people that you are blowing smoke up their ass is you. No form of gun control is Constitutional


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It has nothing to do with ‘fearing’ guns – that’s a lie.
> 
> However misguided and ineffective, those who support high-capacity magazine bans do not ‘fear’ guns nor do they advocate ‘banning’ guns.


Lie number 5567


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Apr 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> To oppose perfectly Constitutional firearm regulatory measures is not to ‘advocate’ for the Second Amendment – which is why the term is idiocy.
> 
> To advocate for the Second Amendment is to support Second Amendment jurisprudence, to acknowledge the fact that the Amendment is not ‘absolute,’ and to acknowledge the fact that government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right consistent with that jurisprudence.
> 
> Indeed, conservatives’ hostility toward Second Amendment jurisprudence renders them opponents of the Second Amendment, not ‘advocates.’


The 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  If you really know what "jurisprudence" means, then you have to support it as it's written.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Esdraelon said:


> It will NEVER be enough to satisfy those who fear guns as well as those who FEAR legally owned guns in American hands.  THAT is the last line.  Cross it and the party gets started.



Shouldn't we fear guns in American hands?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Osiris-ODS said:


> Spoken by someone who has clearly never been in a firefight. All of that paper target practice accuracy tends to go out the window when the situation gets real and you have live rounds coming back at you. Unless of course you're a cold-blooded assassin, in which case you're probably not following the laws anyways.



I think in many ways this might be the problem in a nutshell.  99% of us regular civilians living our grey flannel lives will never be in a firefight.  We are far more likely to be gunned down at church or at the grocery store or at work or the theater.

I'm not entirely certain what good high capacity magazines would do but if that is how we have to go to the grocery store now maybe that's part of the problem.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> Shouldn't we fear guns in American hands?


No.  But you should stay out of high crime areas.

You should do that even if we didn't have a lot of guns.  A criminal with a knife is just as bad as a criminal with a gun.


----------



## badbob85037 (Apr 5, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> In an opinion piece found in the news and observer, this nut believes his words could bring us to a compromise.  😆
> As for me I might pay him a visit and show him how wrong he is.
> 
> 
> https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article259852460.html


Anyone talking any type of gun control needs shot. Send him over and I'LL SHOW HIM SOME GUN CONTROL FROM 3 FEET ALL THE WAY OUT TO 1,000 YARDS


----------



## daveman (Apr 5, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  If you really know what "jurisprudence" means, then you have to support it as it's written.


According to irrational gun-haters, "shall not be infringed" means "infringed the fuck out of".


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> No.  But you should stay out of high crime areas.



Like the theater?



Open Bolt said:


> You should do that even if we didn't have a lot of guns.  A criminal with a knife is just as bad as a criminal with a gun.



Uh huh.  Is that why you ignored the data?


----------



## Osiris-ODS (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> I think in many ways this might be the problem in a nutshell.  99% of us regular civilians living our grey flannel lives will never be in a firefight.  We are far more likely to be gunned down at church or at the grocery store or at work or the theater.
> 
> I'm not entirely certain what good high capacity magazines would do but if that is how we have to go to the grocery store now maybe that's part of the problem.



Then maybe the left should start keeping violent criminals in prison instead of letting them out on light sentences to recommit violent crime with illegal firearms. What do you think about that?


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> Like the theater?


High crime areas are more broad than specific buildings.  They include entire neighborhoods if not entire cities.




PV System said:


> Uh huh.  Is that why you ignored the data?


Yes.  I don't see why higher amounts of gun crime really matter.  Crime is just as bad regardless of whether a gun is involved.

"Robbed at gunpoint" versus "robbed at knifepoint" isn't much of a difference in my view.


----------



## daveman (Apr 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> High crime areas are more broad than specific buildings.  They include entire neighborhoods if not entire cities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






You don't understand, Open Bolt.  People killed with guns are _way more deader_ than people killed with other weapons.

Right, PV System?


----------



## Osiris-ODS (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> Shouldn't we fear guns in American hands?


This statistic is misleading bullshit because it includes suicides, which accounts for the higher rate of firearm deaths in the US compared to other countries. Banning guns isn't going to stop suicides, people will just commit suicide by a different means. A better thing would be to end the non-stop foreign wars that have caused a mental health crisis among veterans the likes of which the world has never seen, and take care of our veterans once they do come home rather then let them become homeless while we welcome in immigrants from all around the world so we can turn red areas blue.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

Osiris-ODS said:


> Then maybe the left should start keeping violent criminals in prison instead of letting them out on light sentences to recommit violent crime with illegal firearms. What do you think about that?



Mandatory sentencing guidelines have been in place for quite a while now, 3 strikes laws, etc.  The ultimate goal of getting almost all black males into prison is on track in America.

Yet for some reason we still have weekly mass shootings and our gun homicide rate is still world-leading for developed nations.

America has the highest per capita prison rate of any developed nation on earth.

It's almost as if this drive to put people in prison _isn't working to slow our gun homicide rate!_

I guess we've tried literally everything.


----------



## Flash (Apr 6, 2022)

daveman said:


> He says:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading there.  No, it wouldn't.  This guy needs to stick to psychology, because he sucks at being knowledgeable about firearms.


The stupid sonofabitch doesn't understand how few "assault rifles" are actually used in shootings.

The gun crime reality in this country is mostly minority street thugs killing one another with cheap handguns.  No new additional law will change that.


----------



## Flash (Apr 6, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> What part of "shall not be abridged" don't you understand?


He is Canadian.  He doesn't understand any of it.


----------



## Flash (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Mandatory sentencing guidelines have been in place for quite a while now, 3 strikes laws, etc.  The ultimate goal of getting almost all black males into prison is on track in America.
> 
> Yet for some reason we still have weekly mass shootings and our gun homicide rate is still world-leading for developed nations.
> 
> ...




Well, we could do like the Liberals want and let the thugs out of prison.  What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 6, 2022)

Flash said:


> He is Canadian.  He doesn't understand any of it.


They don't understand freedom of speech either.  Trudeau is practically a dictator.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Shouldn't we fear guns in American hands?



Our gun murder is confined to tiny neighborhoods in democrat party controlled cities…..the majority, the vast majority of the victims are criminals, not normal citizens.  Of the rest, the majority of those victims are the friends and family of criminals…….

Meanwhile, according to the Centers for Disease Control Americans use their legal guns 1.1 times a year to stop rapes, roberries, murders, beatings and stabbings…..what do you say to those people?

Also…..our problem isn’t guns…..our problem is the democrat party…..their judges, prosecutors and politicians keep releasing the most violent gun offenders, over and over again no matter how often they are arrested for gun and other felonies…what do you say to that?

And those other countries in that chart?  Europe took guns away from their citizens in the 1920s and the 1930s, then in they murdered 15 million men, women and children.

Those 15 million murdered, are more than all of those killed by criminals with guns in the U.S. for the last 80 years…..

So they murdered more people in 6 years than all of our criminals murdered with guns in 80 years…

what do say about that fact?


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> I think in many ways this might be the problem in a nutshell.  99% of us regular civilians living our grey flannel lives will never be in a firefight.  We are far more likely to be gunned down at church or at the grocery store or at work or the theater.
> 
> I'm not entirely certain what good high capacity magazines would do but if that is how we have to go to the grocery store now maybe that's part of the problem.



No you are not more likely to be gunned down in any of those places… In 2021 we had 6 mass public shootings.  6 people out of over 330 million people.


They murdered a total of 43 people…..out of 330 million people.

To put that in perspective:…

deer kill 200 people a year
Ladders kill 300 people a year
Knives kill 1,500 people a year
Lawn mowers kill 90-100 people a year

So you don’t really know what you are saying


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Our gun murder is confined to tiny neighborhoods in democrat party controlled cities…..



That's an interesting claim.  I'd love to see your numbers on that because, remember what you have to prove is that the "tiny neighborhoods" have *so much gun homicide that the values AVERAGED OVER THE ENTIRE US POPULATION* (which is what the "per capita" means) *STILL PUT US ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER THAN ANY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION ON EARTH.*

That's a pretty tall order mathematically speaking.  I'd be interested to see your work.



2aguy said:


> the majority, the vast majority of the victims are criminals, not normal citizens.  Of the rest, the majority of those vintimate are the friends and family of criminals…….



Studies show that simply keeping a gun in the house increases the likelihood of the death of someone in that house (family) from the gun.  Is that also limited to only "bad people neighborhoods"?



2aguy said:


> Meanwhile, according to the Centers for Disease Control Americans use their legal guns 1.1 times a year to stop rapes, roberries, murders, beatings and stabbings…..what do you say to those people?



I would love to see that citation.  But the way you phrased it doesn't make any sense.  Americans use their legal guns once a year to stop rapes, crimes, beatings, etc.  That means that 200+ million people a year pull a gun out to stop a bad guy.  That's pretty astounding for a claim.  Doesn't sound like reality so I assume you simply didn't phrase it correctly.



2aguy said:


> Also…..our problem isn’t guns…..our problem is the democrat party…..their judges, prosecutors and politicians keep releasing the most violent gun offenders, over and over again no matter how often they are arrested for gun and other felonies…what do you say to that?



America has the highest prison population per capita of any developed nation on earth.  The difference appears to be "gun ownership rate". Unless you think that Norwegians are somehow a different species of human.



2aguy said:


> And those other countries in that chart?  Europe took guns away from their citizens in the 1920s and the 1930s, then in they murdered 15 million men, women and children.



That's simply incorrect.  Many of them actually still have a strong gun culture...they just don't have as many guns and they have a few more limitations on gun ownership.  



2aguy said:


> what do say about that fact?



I'd say you made a lot of dubious, oversimplified and outright incorrect claims without once actually supporting them.  So...kudos?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No you are not more likely to be gunned down in any of those places… In 2021 we had 6 mass public shootings.  6 people out of over 330 million people.



Hmm, interesting.  6 you say.  Did any of the other 693 reported mass shootings count?

6........693, really, who's counting?



2aguy said:


> They murdered a total of 43 people…..out of 330 million people.



43....703....it's all just numbers isn't it?


2aguy said:


> So you don’t really know what you are saying



Apparently neither do you.  Only difference is I have a way to support my claim.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Mandatory sentencing guidelines have been in place for quite a while now, 3 strikes laws, etc.  The ultimate goal of getting almost all black males into prison is on track in America.
> 
> Yet for some reason we still have weekly mass shootings and our gun homicide rate is still world-leading for developed nations.
> 
> ...


So you're saying don't punish the offender if they are black?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Hmm, interesting.  6 you say.  Did any of the other 693 reported mass shootings count?
> 
> 6........693, really, who's counting?
> 
> ...


A mass shooting is defined three or more people killed in one shooting incident. But since anti gunners changed the definition of mass shooting your count is going to be higher


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Hmm, interesting.  6 you say.  Did any of the other 693 reported mass shootings count?
> 
> 6........693, really, who's counting?
> 
> ...


Pushing a false narrative is not the way to do it.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So you're saying don't punish the offender if they are black?



Not even close.  But if oversimplifying topics is your thing then thing away.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pushing a false narrative is not the way to do it.



I note you didn't actually address the numbers posted and the links.

Good for you!  

False narratives are a LOT easier to push when you don't even bother to support your claims.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> I note you didn't actually address the numbers posted and the links.
> 
> Good for you!
> 
> False narratives are a LOT easier to push when you don't even bother to support your claims.


Including suicides in your number is a sign of how weak your argument is.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's an interesting claim.  I'd love to see your numbers on that because, remember what you have to prove is that the "tiny neighborhoods" have *so much gun homicide that the values AVERAGED OVER THE ENTIRE US POPULATION* (which is what the "per capita" means) *STILL PUT US ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER THAN ANY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION ON EARTH.*
> 
> That's a pretty tall order mathematically speaking.  I'd be interested to see your work.
> 
> ...




First, asshole...

*First, crime is heavily concentrated by place. As a general matter, 5 percent of the locations in a given city account for 50 percent of that city’s crime. This finding has been replicated so often that it is sometimes referred to as “the law of crime concentration.” As David Weisburd and Taryn Zastrow note in a recent Manhattan Institute report, “there is tremendous consistency in the degree to which crime is concentrated at hot spots across cities.” This is not just a matter of neighborhoods: between 3 percent and 5 percent of specific addresses on city blocks generate 50 percent or more of reported crimes. And if the focus is strictly on violent crime, such as shootings, then even fewer locations—perhaps a drug house or a liquor-store check-cashing operation—are magnets for an even greater percentage of violent crime.*
*
This first rule has important implications for law enforcement. Identifying and concentrating on hot spots can yield big rewards. Merely parking a patrol car outside of these addresses can lessen crime; even better to identify what exactly is going on there. Some crime may be displaced to other locations when the police shut down hot spots, but evidence shows that suppressing crime at these magnet addresses may create a diffusion of benefits that extends beyond the hot spot. After all, setting up another stash house or problematic liquor store is not always so simple.

Second, violent crime is heavily concentrated in a relatively few individuals. In general, 5 percent of the criminal offenders (not 5 percent of the general population) in a given city commit about 50 percent of that city’s violent crime. One study found that just 1 percent of offenders were responsible for over 60 percent of violent crime.

The concentration of crime among people reinforces the need for precision policing. If the police and prosecutors are able to focus on this high-offending cohort, they can respond with enhanced investigative efforts and increase the chance that these “violence generators” will face arrest, conviction, and sentencing for their crimes. Identifying the small fraction of the most dangerous criminals and taking them out of circulation reduces the violent crime rate—in a recent paper, Penn criminologist Aaron Chalfin notes that when the NYPD arrested and prosecuted members of violent criminal gangs, gun violence in gang areas fell by approximately one-third in the first year after a gang takedown. Focusing on the worst of the worst also eases the load on the criminal-justice system. In a hypothetical city of 1.5 million people with 100,000 criminal offenders, the police department has an achievable goal of targeting 5,000 violent offenders, rather than the Sisyphean task of proactively monitoring every criminal. Creative diversion programs for low-risk offenders can also preserve space in correctional facilities
*
*Third and finally, crime is concentrated in time. It is predictable by hours, days of the week, and season. The small percentage of chronic offenders who generate the majority of serious crime and violence aren’t actively committing crime all day, every day. Instead, the criminal activity in crime hot spots and among chronic offenders tends to occur at night, during the weekends (Thursday night through early Sunday morning), and in the summer. In Philadelphia, for example, robberies and murder peak during the evenings between 10:00 P.M. and 1:00 A.M. The weekends are obvious triggers for violent crime, as there are simply more potential offenders and victims on the streets. And summer is the most dangerous time of year in most of the United States.*

.Three Facts about Crime | City Journal


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's an interesting claim.  I'd love to see your numbers on that because, remember what you have to prove is that the "tiny neighborhoods" have *so much gun homicide that the values AVERAGED OVER THE ENTIRE US POPULATION* (which is what the "per capita" means) *STILL PUT US ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER THAN ANY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION ON EARTH.*
> 
> That's a pretty tall order mathematically speaking.  I'd be interested to see your work.
> 
> ...




Those gun studies on having a gun are lies....created by gun grabbers...here is the most famous one....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.*


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

*Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----
*

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming* "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 *

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

*He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example, 

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. 
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.*

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

*Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.*

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

*It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.*

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's an interesting claim.  I'd love to see your numbers on that because, remember what you have to prove is that the "tiny neighborhoods" have *so much gun homicide that the values AVERAGED OVER THE ENTIRE US POPULATION* (which is what the "per capita" means) *STILL PUT US ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER THAN ANY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION ON EARTH.*
> 
> That's a pretty tall order mathematically speaking.  I'd be interested to see your work.
> 
> ...




The gun 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 (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's an interesting claim.  I'd love to see your numbers on that because, remember what you have to prove is that the "tiny neighborhoods" have *so much gun homicide that the values AVERAGED OVER THE ENTIRE US POPULATION* (which is what the "per capita" means) *STILL PUT US ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER THAN ANY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION ON EARTH.*
> 
> That's a pretty tall order mathematically speaking.  I'd be interested to see your work.
> 
> ...




Our democrat party keeps releasing the most violent gun offenders over and over again...so it doesn't matter how many people we lock up, dipshit, if the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians keep releasing the most violent gun offenders who do almost all of our shootings....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Hmm, interesting.  6 you say.  Did any of the other 693 reported mass shootings count?
> 
> 6........693, really, who's counting?
> 
> ...




That number is a lie......because we only had 6 actual mass public shootings in 2021....according to the actual FBI definition of a mass public shooting, anti-gun fascists like you have to mix in every gang shooting you can find.....that is where the 693 comes from....

And if you stay out of democrat party controlled cities.....in the tiny areas where the gangs shoot at each other over and over again, you don't have to worry....

And again, the majority of actual gun murder victims are criminals....and of the rest, the vast majority are the friends and family of the criminals hit by mistake when the other criminals are shooting at the criminals......


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Hmm, interesting.  6 you say.  Did any of the other 693 reported mass shootings count?
> 
> 6........693, really, who's counting?
> 
> ...




Shitbird....you have an anti-gun extremist site that lies.....that mixes in gangs shooting at each other in order to inflate the number...because normal Americans know that an actual mass public shooting is an individual walking into a public space to murder strangers.......which happened 6 times in 2021...according to the actual FBI defintion.....



US mass shootings, 1982–2022: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

Dating back to at least 2005, the FBI and leading criminologists essentially defined a mass shooting as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed. We adopted that baseline for fatalities when we gathered data in 2012 on three decades worth of cases. 
-------


Here is a description of the criteria we use:

The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three; our database reflects this change beginning from Jan. 2013, as detailed above.)
The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)
The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.)
* Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).*


Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.
We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
----------------------

Our research focused on indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker. We exclude shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. (Or in which the perpetrators have not been identified.) Other news outlets and researchers have since published larger tallies that include a wide range of gun crimes in which four or more people have been either wounded or killed. While those larger datasets of multiple-victim shootings are useful for studying the broader problem of gun violence, our investigation provides an in-depth look at a distinct phenomenon—from the firearms used and mental health factors to the growing copycat problem. Tracking mass shootings is complex; we believe ours is the most useful approach for studying this specific phenomenon.



---------
The actual number of mass shootings from Mother Jones......

Here you go...the number of mass public shootings according to Mother Jones...rabid, anti gun, left wing news source.....not the NRA...

The list below comes from the old definition of 4 killed to make a shooting a mass shooting...if you now go to the link there are more than listed below...but that is because Mother Jones changed the list from the time I first posted it...and changed to obama's new standard of only 3 dead to make a mass shooting...



US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

*2021...6*
2020....2

2019....10

*Total number of people killed in mass public shootings by year...


2021...43*
2020....5
2019....73
2018.....93
2017........117
*2016......71*
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8



US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation







330 million Americans......how many committed mass public shootings in 2021....

6

How many did they murder....

43

*Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...

Cars killed over 39,000 people in 2019...

So....6 people in a country of over 330 million committed mass public shootings....and for this, you think we should ban 600 million guns...?*


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> I note you didn't actually address the numbers posted and the links.
> 
> Good for you!
> 
> False narratives are a LOT easier to push when you don't even bother to support your claims.




Moron......the anti-gun extremists, like you....always include suicides in your numbers because if you don't, you can't generate enough murder to support your dreams of gun control........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-gun-laws-tend-to-have-the-fewest-gun-deaths/

In any case, we were curious to see what would happen if suicides were removed from the totals. After all, rural areas (which may have less-restrictive gun laws) have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. So we ran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference.
Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine. Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.
Meanwhile, Maryland — a more urban state — fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.

******************
Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?

*Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down. *

New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.


At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.


Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, _National Journal_ (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.
According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.
Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming _had too few homicides_ in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had _National Journal_'s main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer. 
"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the _National Journal_ post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies _cause _lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis. Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.


****************

The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review


Take this, for example, from ThinkProgress’s Zack Beauchamp, with whom I had a discussion about the issue on Wednesday evening: “STUDY: States with loose gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.” The claim sounds like an entirely straightforward one. In English, it means that there is more gun violence in states with relatively liberal gun laws.

 But that is of course not at all what it means.

*In order to reach that conclusion, the authors of the study were obliged to insert a supplementary measure of “gun violence,” that being the “crime-gun export rate.” If a gun legally sold in Indiana ends up someday being used in a crime in Chicago, then that is counted as an incidence of gun violence in Indiana, even though it is no such thing. *


This is a fairly nakedly political attempt to manipulate statistics in such a way as to attribute some portion of Chicago’s horrific crime epidemic to peaceable neighboring communities.


 And even if we took the “gun-crime export rate” to be a meaningful metric, we would need to consider the fact that it accounts only for those guns sold legally. Of course states that do not have many legal gun sales do not generate a lot of records for “gun-crime exports.” It is probable that lots of guns sold in Illinois end up being used in crimes in Indiana; the difference is, those guns are sold on the black market, and so do not show up in the records. The choice of metrics is just another way to put a thumb on the scale.

Read more at: The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate | National Review


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Including suicides in your number is a sign of how weak your argument is.



Interesting.  So people who commit suicides don't count as people?

Before you run around screeching that someone could easily commit suicide with non-guns, might I note that many people who kill themselves make a few attempts that are NOT successful.  In some cases that means they get the time to get the help they need.  But guns kind of make an "attempted suicide" a "successful suicide" more times than not.

I love how you gun folks carve out special exceptions based on your desperate hopes that guns aren't a problem.  

So much special pleading.  And nary a number in sight from you folks.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's an interesting claim.  I'd love to see your numbers on that because, remember what you have to prove is that the "tiny neighborhoods" have *so much gun homicide that the values AVERAGED OVER THE ENTIRE US POPULATION* (which is what the "per capita" means) *STILL PUT US ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER THAN ANY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION ON EARTH.*
> 
> That's a pretty tall order mathematically speaking.  I'd be interested to see your work.
> 
> ...




murder rates are cultural. European murder is different from American murder...in America, our murder is primarily confined to criminals murdering other criminals in democrat party controlled cities.

In Europe, murder is generally a government organized and led activity directed not at criminals, but at innocent citizens, as we saw with the over 15  million murdered by the German Socialists, 

Europeans murder far more innocent people than American criminals do.

If you take the American murder number, made up mostly of criminals murdering other criminals, using 1939 as a starting point...

10,235 gun murders in 2019 will be used to represent murder each year from 1939.....

10,235 X 82 years = 839,270 murders.....the majority of victims criminals 

15 million murdered by European governments in the period 1939-1945, the majority of victims innocent citizens, men, women and children.

15,000,000 / 82. years.... = 182,926 averaged for each year

Any way you look at it, Europe murders far more innocent men, women and children that the US. criminals do...


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Interesting.  So people who commit suicides don't count as people?
> 
> Before you run around screeching that someone could easily commit suicide with non-guns, might I note that many people who kill themselves make a few attempts that are NOT successful.  In some cases that means they get the time to get the help they need.  But guns kind of make an "attempted suicide" a "successful suicide" more times than not.
> 
> ...




No...shithead...they don't count for gun murder.......Japan has extreme gun control...only their criminals and police have easy access to guns....you idiot...yet their suicide rate is higher than ours....as are the rates of China, South Korea, and many countries in Europe...you idiot.

So guns are not the issue in suicides, but you need to add them into the gun murder number to inflate that number......

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide

*There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. *
*
 According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.:  Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000.  By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.   
Suicide is a mental health issue.  If guns are not available other means are used.  Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%). 

Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article.  The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited.  Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows:  Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).
Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)
Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics.  According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent.  Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S. *
*========*


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Interesting.  So people who commit suicides don't count as people?
> 
> Before you run around screeching that someone could easily commit suicide with non-guns, might I note that many people who kill themselves make a few attempts that are NOT successful.  In some cases that means they get the time to get the help they need.  But guns kind of make an "attempted suicide" a "successful suicide" more times than not.
> 
> ...




Suicide rates by country, you idiot...

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jea/14/6/14_6_187/_pdf







And yet Scotland has a higher suicide rate than the U.S......Japan, where only criminals and cops have guns, has a higher suicide rate than the U.S....Sweden has a higher suicide rate than the U.S....Denmark has a higher suicide rate than the u.S.....



France

Germany,

Hungary

Iceland

New Zealand

Poland

Norway

Japan

South Korea



https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html



Scotland..



15.7 suicides per 100,000

In 2019?

16.7 suicides per 100,000.

And in the U.S.?

13.93 per 100,000



Suicide facts and figures



Changes in Suicide Rates — United States, ...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html



South Korea 24.7

Hungary 21

Japan 19.4

Belgium 18.4

Finland 16.5

France 14.6

Austria 13.8

Poland 13.8

Czec Republic 12.7

New Zealand 11.9

Denmark 11.3

Sweden  11.1

Norway 10.9

Slovac Republic 10.9

Iceland 10.3

Germany 10.3

Canada 10.2

United States 10.1



A new report by Unicef contains a shocking statistic - New Zealand has by far the highest youth suicide rate in the developed world.
A shock but no surprise - it's not the first time the country tops that table.
The Unicef report found New Zealand's youth suicide rate - teenagers between 15 and 19 - to be the highest of a long list of 41 OECD and EU countries.
The rate of 15.6 suicides per 100,000 people is twice as high as the US rate and almost five times that of Britain.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Interesting.  So people who commit suicides don't count as people?
> 
> Before you run around screeching that someone could easily commit suicide with non-guns, might I note that many people who kill themselves make a few attempts that are NOT successful.  In some cases that means they get the time to get the help they need.  But guns kind of make an "attempted suicide" a "successful suicide" more times than not.
> 
> ...




Now that I have easier access to my information, I have shown that you are an idiot, who can't back up the lies you are pushing........I backed up every stat.........you have nothing.......


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> First, asshole...



Interesting approach there.  I take it you aren't used to people questioning your "erudition".



2aguy said:


> *First, crime is heavily concentrated by place. As a general matter, 5 percent of the locations in a given city account for 50 percent of that city’s crime. This finding has been replicated so often that it is sometimes referred to as “the law of crime concentration.” As David Weisburd and Taryn Zastrow note in a recent Manhattan Institute report, “there is tremendous consistency in the degree to which crime is concentrated at hot spots across cities.” This is not just a matter of neighborhoods: between 3 percent and 5 percent of specific addresses on city blocks generate 50 percent or more of reported crimes. And if the focus is strictly on violent crime, such as shootings, then even fewer locations—perhaps a drug house or a liquor-store check-cashing operation—are magnets for an even greater percentage of violent crime.*



Go ahead and work out the numbers.  If you can.  

You've got a population of 300million people, a gun homicide rate of 5.9 gun homices/100,000 people and 42% of American households with at least one gun.

WHile I will readily agree that high crime areas are, just that, high crime, I'm curious why our gun homicide rate is so much higher than any other developed nation (almost all of which have big cities in them).

We can make the argument that these other developed nations are either "a less violent species of humans than Americans" or that they have a society-based reason for it (more controls on guns in circulation, better social safety net, less poverty, etc.)  

I know it's easy to oversimplify a system.  But at some point you have to work the numbers closely.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> murder rates are cultural. European murder is different from American murder...in America, our murder is primarily confined to criminals murdering other criminals in democrat party controlled cities.



LOL.  Sorry, that's just stupid.  Or it's dogwhistle racism.  Pick your fave.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Interesting approach there.  I take it you aren't used to people questioning your "erudition".
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Moron....those other nations murdered 15 million people......in 6 years....you fail to point that out.......after they confiscated guns........

That means they murdered more people in that 6 year period than our criminals with guns did in 82 years....you idiot.............

Governments murder more people than criminals do........

Our gun murder rate is higher because our democrat party keeps releasing violent gun criminals over and over again.....these criminals who are released are doing almost all of our shootings........don't worry, Europe is starting to do this too, their society has reached the point of damage by left wingers that our society reached a few decades ago...


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> LOL.  Sorry, that's just stupid.  Or it's dogwhistle racism.  Pick your fave.




Dipshit....

D.C. study...
*A study finds that suspects in violent crime in the District share a lot of characteristics.*

*The National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform looked at the numbers for homicides and nonfatal shooting in D.C. in 2019 and 2020, and found that “most gun violence is tightly concentrated on a small number of very high-risk young Black male adults that share a common set of risk factors.”

Those factors include involvements in street crews, a previous criminal justice history and connection to a recent shooting. Often, they’ve been the victims of crime themselves. While the motive for the shooting “may not be a traditional gang war,” the report says, “often shootings are precipitated by a petty conflict over a young woman, a simple argument, or the now-ubiquitous social media slight.”
---------
More than 90% of victims and suspects in 2019 and 2020 were male and about 96% were Black.*

*The study also found that another 86% of victims and suspects have been involved with the criminal justice system and the average age of victims is 31, while the average age of suspects is 27 years old.*

*They found that, in terms of prior arrests, “victims and suspects were remarkably similar.”

http://[URL='https://wtop.com/dc/20...dc-gun-crimes-involve-small-number-of-people/[/URL]


Bonus content.......the actual study...

About 96 percent of victims and suspects in both homicides and nonfatal shootings were Black, despite Black residents comprising only 46 percent of the overall population in the District (Table 1).
-----*
*Approximately 86 percent of homicide victims and suspects were known to the criminal justice system prior to the incident. Among all victims and suspects, about 46 percent had been previously incarcerated (Figure 2).*
*At least 23.3 percent of all homicide victims and suspects were under active supervision (i.e., CSOSA, PSA, or DYRS)1.** At least 64 percent of all victims and suspects had been under any prior or active supervision and at least 76% of homicide suspects had active or prior supervision.
------*
*Overall, most victims and suspects with prior criminal offenses had been arrested about 11 times for about 13 different offenses by the time of the homicide. This count only refers to adult arrests and juvenile arrests were not included.
-------

In Washington, DC, most gun violence is tightly concentrated on a small number of very high risk young Black male adults that share a common set of risk factors, including: involvement in street crews/groups; significant criminal justice history including prior or active community supervision; often prior victimization; and a connection to a recent shooting (within the past 12 months).
While the majority of people involved in shootings, as victim or suspect, are members or associates of street groups/gangs, the motive for the shooting may not be a traditional gang war. Often shootings are precipitated by a petty conflict over a young woman, a simple argument, or the now ubiquitous social media slight.
-----
This small number of very high risk individuals are identifiable, their violence is predictable, and therefore it is preventable. Based on the assessment of data and the series of interviews conducted, NICJR estimates that within a year, there are at least 500 identifiable people who rise to this level of very high risk, and likely no more than 200 at any one given time. These individuals comprise approximately 60-70% of all gun violence in the District. Nealy 250 specific individuals were identified through the GVPA process but more importantly, the risk factors that make someone at very high risk has been identified in order to develop an on-going process to focus intervention efforts on those at very high risk.*

https://cjcc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/cjcc/release_content/attachments/DC Gun Violence Problem Analysis Summary Report.pdf
========


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> LOL.  Sorry, that's just stupid.  Or it's dogwhistle racism.  Pick your fave.




Moron.....more.....



> Most murder victims in big cities have criminal record
> 
> A review of murder statistics across America shows that in many large cities, up to 90 percent of the _victims_ have criminal records.
> -------
> ...





Houston.....most shooters criminals

Houston murder rate skyrockets in early 2015

McClelland said the majority of murders in the city are committed by people with criminal records against people with criminal records.

-----
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html?_r=0



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.

http://www.guns.com/2015/12/16/nearly-half-of-nycs-shootings-gang-related/

Of the more than 300 homicides so far this year in New York City, almost half of those – 40 percent – were determined to be gang-related, with 49 percent of the city’s nearly 1,100 shootings tied to gangs as well.
-----
Data obtained by the _Daily News_ from the NYPD’s Gang and Juvenile Justice divisions indicate that gang members may be as young as 10 years old, with most members in their teens and early twenties. Those who survive the lifestyle long enough often have extensive criminal records by their 30s.


----
---From an article on Operation Ceasefire...it cites the number of criminals in Oakland California who actually shoot people and who get shot, and there criminal backgrounds...

https://newrepublic.com/article/124445/beyond-gun-control

Lost in the debate is that even in high-crime cities, the risk of gun violence is mostly concentrated among a small number of men. In Oakland, for instance, crime experts working with the police department a few years ago found that about 1,000 active members of a few dozen street groups drove most homicides. That’s .3 percent of Oakland’s population. And even within this subgroup, risk fluctuated according to feuds and other beefs. In practical terms, the experts found that over a given stretch of several months only about 50 to 100 men are at the highest risk of shooting someone or getting shot.

Most of these men have criminal records. But it’s not drug deals or turf wars that drives most of the shootings.

Instead, the violence often starts with what seems to outsiders like trivial stuff—“a fight over a girlfriend, a couple of words, a dispute over a dice game,” said Vaughn Crandall, a senior strategist at the California Partnership for Safe Communities, which did the homicide analysis for Oakland.

Most murder victims in big cities have criminal record

A review of murder statistics across America shows that in many large cities, up to 90 percent of the _victims_ have criminal records.
-------
The report concludes that “of the 2011 homicide victims, 77 percent (66) had a least one prior arrest and of the known 2011 homicide suspects 90 percent (74) had at least one prior arrest.”
----------
In early 2012, after pressure put on the police by murder victims’ families in New Orleans, the police department stopped revealing whether or not the murder victim had a prior record.
---------------
Though data is no longer published in Baltimore, USA Today reported in 2007 that 91 percent of the then-205 murder victims in the city between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31, 2007, had criminal records.
---------
A WND review of the Philadelphia Police Department Murder and Shooting Analysis for 2011 shows a similar pattern to that of other large cities in America – a majority of the murder victims have prior records.

--------
In Philadelphia in 2011, of 324 murders, 81 percent (263) of the victims had at least one prior arrest; 62 percent (164) had been arrested for a violent crime prior to their murder.
----------
In Newark, N.J., long considered one of America’s most dangerous cities, 85 percent of the 165 murder victims between 2009 and 2010 had serious arrest histories.
Anthony Braga, a professor with the Rutgers-Newark School of Criminal Justice, told the Newark Star-Ledger that 85 percent of 165 murder victims in Newark between 2009 and 2010 had been arrested at least once before they were killed.
Those victims, he said, had, on average, 10 prior arrests on their criminal records.
A WND review of the Chicago Police Department Murder Analysis reports from 2003 to 2011 provides a statistical breakdown of the demographics of both the victims and offenders in the 4,265 murders in Chicago over that time period.


***************
*****************


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> LOL.  Sorry, that's just stupid.  Or it's dogwhistle racism.  Pick your fave.




The race card?   You really are lazy moron..........

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS 

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost  uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37 So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40 

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




III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation. Nations and


areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54 that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

*These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”*60 

*Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a*

stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62 

*Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64 *

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65 


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69 

*A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed *


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The race card?   You really are lazy moron..........



LOL.  You seem to need a bit more of the happy pills, dude.  You are a bit off the rails.  Meds can help (but I'm sure you've been told that from time to time.)


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> LOL.  You seem to need a bit more of the happy pills, dude.  You are a bit off the rails.  Meds can help (but I'm sure you've been told that from time to time.)


You are the sick one claiming suicides should count as murders and ignoring the fact that 90 percent of all murders are committed by career criminals.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are the sick one claiming suicides should count as murders



Except I never said suicides were murders.  They are just another form of gun-related death, many of which COULD have been avoided if guns were not available.

The thing I dislike about the gun enthusiast culture is that they so quickly jump on mental health issues as a way to divert the discussion from guns, but when actual mental health outcomes don't fit their narrative they suddenly couldn't care less.

It's almost as if the mentally ill are a handy scapegoat but nothing more.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Except I never said suicides were murders.  They are just another form of gun-related death, many of which COULD have been avoided if guns were not available.
> 
> The thing I dislike about the gun enthusiast culture is that they so quickly jump on mental health issues as a way to divert the discussion from guns, but when actual mental health outcomes don't fit their narrative they suddenly couldn't care less.
> 
> It's almost as if the mentally ill are a handy scapegoat but nothing more.


You dont have a point. The fact is countries with strict firearms laws have HIGHER suicide rates. Proving firearms are not to blame.


----------



## hadit (Apr 6, 2022)

fncceo said:


> *"There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus round magazine."*
> 
> Unless, of course, the person or persons whom you're defending against have 30-round magazines.


Or there's more than 1 person attacking you. When the best trained policemen miss their targets more than they hit them in poor lighting and high adrenaline conditions, you cannot expect a civilian in similar situations to neatly use one or two bullets each to stop multiple attackers.


----------



## hadit (Apr 6, 2022)

Donald H said:


> The important question is, would denying those who want a black assault weapon to kill people, lower the rate of murder with gun in America?
> 
> I think it would because there would be less gratification for the killer if he was limited to using a gun that didn't look the part for a murder, and obviously be less efficient in killing large numbers of people.
> 
> ...


Gun grabbers often talk about "assault" weapons without being able to define what they are other than "big, black and scary looking". Would it soothe their fears if the exact same capabilities were packed into guns that were a soft, soothing color? Because I'm pretty sure someone forced to use one to defend himself and his family wouldn't care what color the weapon was as long as it functioned correctly.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Studies show that simply keeping a gun in the house increases the likelihood of the death of someone in that house (family) from the gun.  Is that also limited to only "bad people neighborhoods"?


Having a car increases the likelihood of being killed in a car accident with that car.

Having a bath tub increases the likelihood of drowning in that bath tub.

Having a stairway increases the likelihood of having a fatal fall down that stairway.




PV System said:


> Interesting.  So people who commit suicides don't count as people?


Suicides are voluntary.  That makes them a bit different from homicides.

However, many gun owners would be OK with having a system where suicidal people could _voluntarily_ and _temporarily_ hand over their guns until they are better.

People would probably be wary that the system could be abused to violate our rights.  But they'd go for it if they were assured that there were sufficient safeguards against such abuses.




PV System said:


> WHile I will readily agree that high crime areas are, just that, high crime, I'm curious why our gun homicide rate is so much higher than any other developed nation (almost all of which have big cities in them).


Their better social safety nets make for less poverty and less crime, including fewer homicides.

Of course if there are fewer guns in a society, more of their homicides (whatever level the overall homicide numbers are) will be committed with other kinds of weapons.

The victims are still just as dead though no matter what kind of weapon is used to kill them.




PV System said:


> LOL.  Sorry, that's just stupid.  Or it's dogwhistle racism.  Pick your fave.


It looks like basic truth to me.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Having a car increases the likelihood of being killed in a car accident with that car.



Oh gosh!  Such a NOVEL argument!  Wow.  That's amazing.


Open Bolt said:


> Suicides are voluntary.  That makes them a bit different from homicides.



the point about suicides is a bit more subtle.  I'll outline it again since reading doesn't appear to be your forte:

Many suicides start off trying or "attempting" suicide unsuccessfully.  If they are lucky they get the help they need and subsequent attempts are not made.

But with a gun the odds of any given attempt being SUCCESSFUL go WAAAAY up.  (I'll let you figure out why).

So the presence of guns increases the likelihood that a "rash decision" attempt becomes a permanent situation.



Open Bolt said:


> However, many gun owners would be OK with having a system where suicidal people could _voluntarily_ and _temporarily_ hand over their guns until they are better.



What about the guns in the house that don't belong to the suicidal person?


Open Bolt said:


> Their better social safety nets make for less poverty and less crime, including fewer homicides.



I'm all for better social safety nets!  That's probably the quickest way to eliminate a lot of urban crime by improving opportunities for the desperately poor.



Open Bolt said:


> Of course if there are fewer guns in a society, more of their homicides (whatever level the overall homicide numbers are) will be committed with other kinds of weapons.



LOL.  Not really.  I assume you know that it is MUCH easier to kill with a gun than a knife.  That's why you don't go deer hunting with a knife.  Guns are extremely efficient killing machines.

The shooter at Las Vegas wouldn't have been able to do what he did from his hotel room dozens of floors up and a long way away from the concert if he was armed even with a BUNCH of knives.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Oh gosh!  Such a NOVEL argument!  Wow.  That's amazing.


Your point about guns causing gun accidents is just as ancient as my rebuttal.

The truth may not be new, but it has the advantage of being accurate.




PV System said:


> I'll outline it again since reading doesn't appear to be your forte:


Childish insults are no substitute for facts and logic.




PV System said:


> Many suicides start off trying or "attempting" suicide unsuccessfully.  If they are lucky they get the help they need and subsequent attempts are not made.
> But with a gun the odds of any given attempt being SUCCESSFUL go WAAAAY up.  (I'll let you figure out why).
> So the presence of guns increases the likelihood that a "rash decision" attempt becomes a permanent situation.


Thus my proposal for a system where suicidal people can _voluntarily_ and _temporarily_ hand in their guns for safekeeping until they get better.




PV System said:


> What about the guns in the house that don't belong to the suicidal person?


If the system that I outlined was set up, the person who did own them could _voluntarily_ and _temporarily_ hand them in.

Or they could store them somewhere else.  Or keep them under lock and key so the suicidal person could not get to them.

I think in most cases it will be the suicidal person who owns the guns however.




PV System said:


> LOL.  Not really.


Yes really.  If a society has fewer guns, fewer of their murders are committed using guns.




PV System said:


> I assume you know that it is MUCH easier to kill with a gun than a knife.  That's why you don't go deer hunting with a knife.  Guns are extremely efficient killing machines.


The added efficiency is superfluous.  Most murders are close-range one-on-one affairs.  Knives are more than sufficient.




PV System said:


> The shooter at Las Vegas wouldn't have been able to do what he did from his hotel room dozens of floors up and a long way away from the concert if he was armed even with a BUNCH of knives.


But he could have done it with a bomb.  Or he could have found a way to drive a large truck into the crowd at high speed.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Thus my proposal for a system where suicidal people can _voluntarily_ and _temporarily_ hand in their guns for safekeeping until they get better.



That already exists.  No one is REQUIRED to keep a gun (outside of maybe Kennesaw, GA). 


Open Bolt said:


> Yes really.  If a society has fewer guns, fewer of their murders are committed using guns.



That's facile and not really the point. 

I'm fascinated that we have such a STRONG signal:  America has the highest per capita gun ownership rates of any of the developed first world nations BY A LARGE MARGIN, and we also have the HIGHEST PER CAPITA GUN HOMICIDE RATE of any of those nations.

This isn't just a mild signal, it's HUGE.  It's almost impossible to ignore.  Which is why gun advocates try to hide behind some magical "sociological" difference (as if Norwegians are a different species or something).

And England and Norway and Sweden and Belgium and...all have knives and forks and hammers and clubs freely available.  Yet somehow they manage to NOT kill each other at record levels.



Open Bolt said:


> Most murders are close-range one-on-one affairs.  Knives are more than sufficient.



If that were true then we'd see similar rates of homicide in other developed first world countries, but we don't see that.  Instead America has about 2-4 times the homicide rate (general homicide, not just gun homicide) of most European countries.  (SOURCE)

Do you think they limit the number of steak knives the French can have?



Open Bolt said:


> But he could have done it with a bomb.



A gun is a lot easier to get ahold of.  Which is why it was used.  And used quite effectively.



Open Bolt said:


> Or he could have found a way to drive a large truck into the crowd at high speed.



Not as efficiently as sitting safe in a hotel room several blocks away with a full view of the field of fire.  A truck could swerve around, but not even close to as easily as it would be to simply move the gun a mm to one side. 

Also:  last I checked trucks were easily available in most first world countries with MUCH lower homicide rates than the US.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> That already exists.  No one is REQUIRED to keep a gun (outside of maybe Kennesaw, GA).
> 
> 
> That's facile and not really the point.
> ...



The worst mass public shooting in the U.S……

61 killed

Muslim terrorist in France with a rental truck?

86 killed

More killed in 5 minutes of driving than any mass public shooting in the U.S.

Also….

You need to explain the fact that for 27 years….between 1993 and 2015….gun ownership increased to 600 million guns and over 19.5 million people carrying guns in public for self defense….

Gun murder went down 49%

gun crime went down 75%

violent crime went down 72%

Guns don’t cause crime……democrats releasing violent criminals over and over again causes gun crime.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> That already exists.  No one is REQUIRED to keep a gun (outside of maybe Kennesaw, GA).
> 
> 
> That's facile and not really the point.
> ...



You will have to explain why it is that in Britain they had guns and they had a low gun murder rate…then they banned guns and the gun murder rate did not change….they also averaged 1 mass public shooting every 10 years when they had guns…….and 1 mass public shooting every 10 years after they banned guns…

Guns don’t cause gun crime.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> That already exists.


It doesn't.  There is currently no system for people to _temporarily_ and _voluntarily_ hand in their guns for safekeeping if they are suicidal.




PV System said:


> That's facile and not really the point.


It is the actual reason why a lower proportion of their homicides are committed with guns.




PV System said:


> I'm fascinated that we have such a STRONG signal:  America has the highest per capita gun ownership rates of any of the developed first world nations BY A LARGE MARGIN, and we also have the HIGHEST PER CAPITA GUN HOMICIDE RATE of any of those nations.
> This isn't just a mild signal, it's HUGE.  It's almost impossible to ignore.


It shouldn't be a surprise.  Countries with fewer guns have a lower percentage of their homicides committed with guns.




PV System said:


> Which is why gun advocates try to hide behind some magical "sociological" difference (as if Norwegians are a different species or something).


Strong social safety nets are not magic.




PV System said:


> And England and Norway and Sweden and Belgium and...all have knives and forks and hammers and clubs freely available.  Yet somehow they manage to NOT kill each other at record levels.


They have strong social safety nets, which reduce poverty, which reduces crime rates including homicides.




PV System said:


> If that were true then we'd see similar rates of homicide in other developed first world countries,


Not at all.  Their strong social safety nets reduce the number of homicides that occur there.




PV System said:


> but we don't see that.


Because their strong social safety nets reduce poverty, and thus reduce their crime rates.




PV System said:


> Instead America has about 2-4 times the homicide rate (general homicide, not just gun homicide) of most European countries.  (SOURCE)


We don't have a strong social safety net.




PV System said:


> Do you think they limit the number of steak knives the French can have?


No.  I think the French have a strong social safety net.




PV System said:


> A gun is a lot easier to get ahold of.  Which is why it was used.  And used quite effectively.


True.  But a bomb still would have worked had he not had access to guns.

Note also that he was only able to kill as many as he did because he used bump stocks, which are now illegal (although the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the Constitutionally of that illegality).

Without bump stocks he would not have been able to harm nearly as many as he did.




PV System said:


> Not as efficiently as sitting safe in a hotel room several blocks away with a full view of the field of fire.  A truck could swerve around, but not even close to as easily as it would be to simply move the gun a mm to one side.


True.  But a truck still would have worked had he not had access to guns.

And again, he would not have been able to do it with guns without bump stocks.




PV System said:


> Also:  last I checked trucks were easily available in most first world countries with MUCH lower homicide rates than the US.


Check again.  Such massacres do occur in those countries:








						2016 Nice truck attack - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> That already exists.  No one is REQUIRED to keep a gun (outside of maybe Kennesaw, GA).
> 
> 
> That's facile and not really the point.
> ...



Again….those wonderful First World countries murdered 15 million people in 6 years……….after they took their guns away….

They murdered more people in those 6 years than in 82 years of gun murder in the U.S.  You idiot……….government…with guns did that…after taking guns away from their victims….

So those First World countries you worship have nothing to teach us…..


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It doesn't.  There is currently no system for people to _temporarily_ and _voluntarily_ hand in their guns for safekeeping if they are suicidal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hate to disagree with you, but the criminals in Europe have access and use fully automatic military rifles and grenades …they simply don’t choose to commit murder as often as our criminals do……in fact Sweden, of all countries has a growing gun murder rate…and their criminals use grenades like confetti…….

The preferred weapon of European criminals is the fully automatic military weapon……..something American criminals don’t use……..


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It doesn't.  There is currently no system for people to _temporarily_ and _voluntarily_ hand in their guns for safekeeping if they are suicidal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The social safety net?  It is failing in Europe…..the rates of fatherless homes has reached the point that their teens are now more violent…..add to that the 3rd immigrants who now control their drug trafficking and they don’t care about western values or laws…and they don’t fear the police….


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It doesn't.  There is currently no system for people to _temporarily_ and _voluntarily_ hand in their guns for safekeeping if they are suicidal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



France………increasing gun violence…….









						Three dead in Marseille shootout: 'guns are too easy to buy' says mayor
					

A police investigation is underway after two people were shot dead, and a third burnt alive on Saturday evening in the southern French city of Marseille. It's the fourth death linked to gun violence this…




					www.rfi.fr


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I hate to disagree with you, but the criminals in Europe have access and use fully automatic military rifles and grenades …they simply don’t choose to commit murder as often as our criminals do……in fact Sweden, of all countries has a growing gun murder rate…and their criminals use grenades like confetti…….
> The preferred weapon of European criminals is the fully automatic military weapon……..something American criminals don’t use……..


I don't know that you are disagreeing with me.  My position is that if a weapon is available, it will be used.  If it is unavailable, it will not be used.




2aguy said:


> The social safety net?  It is failing in Europe…..the rates of fatherless homes has reached the point that their teens are now more violent…..add to that the 3rd immigrants who now control their drug trafficking and they don’t care about western values or laws…and they don’t fear the police….


That's going to increase their homicide rates.




2aguy said:


> France………increasing gun violence…….
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hope they are able to stop that mayor from taking their guns away.


----------



## Colin norris (Apr 6, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Fuck off you have no opinion here


Hello rambo. Did he upset you? Ooooooh  go and tell mum he's a naughty boy.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It doesn't.  There is currently no system for people to _temporarily_ and _voluntarily_ hand in their guns for safekeeping if they are suicidal.



Really?  People can't sell their guns and then buy more guns?  People are FORCED to keep the guns they buy?  I honestly didn't know that!  It sounds made up.


Open Bolt said:


> Strong social safety nets are not magic.



Do you support expanding welfare and improving them?

If we are to believe that it is inner city ghettos where the shooting happens (as we've been told SO MANY TIMES) then eliminating that level of poverty must surely make a difference.

But no one ever puts their money where their mouth is.  Either it's all the mentally ill shooting people or it's the poors.  But either way it will COST to offset the problem.  And most gun advocates don't see the connection so they won't pay extra for their hobby.  They just like to USE the mentally ill and the poor as scapegoats so no one can talk about guns.



Open Bolt said:


> They have strong social safety nets, which reduce poverty, which reduces crime rates including homicides.



Agreed!




Open Bolt said:


> Not at all.  Their strong social safety nets reduce the number of homicides that occur there.



Again, I generally agree!  (Of course there is also the general lower number of guns in circulation which reduces the probability of guns being stolen and used for crimes, etc.)



Open Bolt said:


> True.  But a bomb still would have worked had he not had access to guns.



But that's the key.  In America guns are EXCEPTIONALLY easy to get ahold of.  That's because we average more than 1 gun per every man, woman and child in the US.  That's part of the problem.  Too many guns means a higher probability that guns can be obtained (often through illegal means)


----------



## daveman (Apr 6, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So you're saying don't punish the offender if they are black?


It's racist to punish black people for their crimes, because they simply can't help breaking the rules.

Right, white leftists?


----------



## daveman (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Not even close.  But if oversimplifying topics is your thing then thing away.


Can you explain how you're going to get criminals to obey gun laws?  Or is THEY JUST WILL NO REALLY PINKIE SWEAR all you've got?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

daveman said:


> Can you explain how you're going to get criminals to obey gun laws?



Yawn.  Sorry, what?



daveman said:


> Or is THEY JUST WILL NO REALLY PINKIE SWEAR all you've got?



More facile arguments.  Sorry, not interested.  Looking for something more substantive like an actual assessment of the various issues around this topic.

Thanks, though.


----------



## daveman (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Oh gosh!  Such a NOVEL argument!  Wow.  That's amazing.
> 
> 
> the point about suicides is a bit more subtle.  I'll outline it again since reading doesn't appear to be your forte:
> ...


I'd like to point out that you don't actually give a shit about people who commit suicide; they're just a handy pulpit from which to preach the disarmament of law-abiding citizens.


----------



## daveman (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Yawn.  Sorry, what?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, you're not.  You want people to agree with you that guns should be banned, and that's all you'll accept.  People have been giving you facts, studies and rational arguments for pages, and you just hand-wave them away and screech NUH UH.

Meanwhile, you want more gun control laws, and you have no idea how to get criminals -- you know, the people who commit crimes with guns -- to obey those laws.  But that doesn't matter -- you want law-abiding citizens disarmed.  

Anyone who wants you disarmed wants to harm you.  At no point in history ever has a government that disarmed its citizens not gone on to commit violence against them.

You display a great deal of arrogance that simply isn't merited.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Really?


Yes.




PV System said:


> People can't sell their guns and then buy more guns?


Selling your guns is not temporally handing them in until you get better.




PV System said:


> Do you support expanding welfare and improving them?


Yes.




PV System said:


> If we are to believe that it is inner city ghettos where the shooting happens (as we've been told SO MANY TIMES) then eliminating that level of poverty must surely make a difference.
> But no one ever puts their money where their mouth is.  Either it's all the mentally ill shooting people or it's the poors.  But either way it will COST to offset the problem.  And most gun advocates don't see the connection so they won't pay extra for their hobby.


I can see how it would cost more to support a strong social safety net.  But I don't see where paying extra for guns comes into the picture.

Gun ownership is not necessarily a hobby.  It can be.  But some people have guns for protection.




PV System said:


> Again, I generally agree!  (Of course there is also the general lower number of guns in circulation which reduces the probability of guns being stolen and used for crimes, etc.)
> But that's the key.  In America guns are EXCEPTIONALLY easy to get ahold of.  That's because we average more than 1 gun per every man, woman and child in the US.  That's part of the problem.  Too many guns means a higher probability that guns can be obtained (often through illegal means)


I don't think it matters whether guns are involved in crime.

Being murdered with a gun is just as bad as being murdered with a knife.

Being raped at gunpoint is just as bad as being raped at knifepoint.

Being robbed at gunpoint is just as bad as being robbed at knifepoint.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Hello rambo. Did he upset you? Ooooooh  go and tell mum he's a naughty boy.


I'm a mass shooter so you shut the fuck up


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> I note you didn't actually address the numbers posted and the links.
> 
> Good for you!
> 
> False narratives are a LOT easier to push when you don't even bother to support your claims.


Your numbers are skewed. You leftists treat suicide the same as you would treat an murder. You should be more honest but you know that when you start to be honest you will lose the argument.


----------



## Colin norris (Apr 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I'm a mass shooter so you shut the fuck up


Oooooooh  nasty temper there rambo.  Nuts like you shouldn't own a gun.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 7, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Oooooooh  nasty temper there rambo.  Nuts like you shouldn't own a gun.


Well if we are taking away rights then you should lose your 1st amendment rights .


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Oooooooh  nasty temper there rambo.  Nuts like you shouldn't own a gun.


Shrugs bug


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> But with a gun the odds of any given attempt being SUCCESSFUL go WAAAAY up.  (I'll let you figure out why).


This just demonstrates that people who decide to kill themselves with a gun have committed themselves to dying.
If not a gun, then a truck or train or a tall building - and they're still dead.


PV System said:


> So the presence of guns increases the likelihood that a "rash decision" attempt becomes a permanent situation.


As does the presence of a truck, train, or tall building.


PV System said:


> LOL.  Not really.  I assume you know that it is MUCH easier to kill with a gun than a knife.  That's why you don't go deer hunting with a knife.  Guns are extremely efficient killing machines.


This is exactly why our right to own and use them in protected by the constitution from unnecessary and/or ineffective restrictions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 7, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Oooooooh  nasty temper there rambo.  Nuts like you shouldn't own a gun.


Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Apr 7, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It doesn't. There is currently no system for people to _temporarily_ and _voluntarily_ hand in their guns for safekeeping if they are suicidal.



I promise you, if you walk into the St. Johns Country Sheriff's Office (where I live), put a handgun on the watch sergeant's desk and say you're suicidal, they'll accept it...


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> This just demonstrates that people who decide to kill themselves with a gun have committed themselves to dying.



I am struggling here to try to communicate to someone with a cartoon view of mental illness.  I wish I could make this point more clear for you, but I doubt I will be able to.

Perhaps you have never been suicidal.  It's not an easy space to navigate.  Sometimes pain can be so intense and come up on you so quickly that you are rendered incapable of rational planning.   If a person struggles with suicidal ideation and then one day the pain simply gets too great they might take actions that, without easy access to a truly lethal form, wouldn't become permanent.

Would it be too much to suggest you develop some compassion?


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> I am struggling here to try to communicate to someone with a cartoon view of mental illness.  I wish I could make this point more clear for you, but I doubt I will be able to.
> 
> Perhaps you have never been suicidal.  It's not an easy space to navigate.  Sometimes pain can be so intense and come up on you so quickly that you are rendered incapable of rational planning.   If a person struggles with suicidal ideation and then one day the pain simply gets too great they might take actions that, without easy access to a truly lethal form, wouldn't become permanent.
> 
> Would it be too much to suggest you develop some compassion?




Hmmmm......then how do you explain the South Koreans, with extreme gun control, and the highest level of suicide....?  Or the Japanes, and Chinese...or any of those European countries I listed ?

You really have no argument...


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Hmmmm......then how do you explain the South Koreans, with extreme gun control, and the highest level of suicide....?  Or the Japanes, and Chinese...or any of those European countries I listed ?
> 
> You really have no argument...



Well, I may not, but science does. 









						Handgun ownership associated with much higher suicide risk
					

Men who own handguns are eight times more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don’t own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35 times more likely than women who don’t.




					med.stanford.edu
				






			https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMP0805923
		










						The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) publications
					

American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA)



					ajph.aphapublications.org
				












						The Relationship Between Firearm Availability and Suicide
					

Empirical research on the causal effects of firearm availability on the risk of suicide is consistent with the claim that firearms increase suicide risk, but this research cannot yet rule out some other explanations for observed associations between guns and suicide. There are, however...




					www.rand.org


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 7, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> I promise you, if you walk into the St. Johns Country Sheriff's Office (where I live), put a handgun on the watch sergeant's desk and say you're suicidal, they'll accept it...


But will they return it to you when you are better??


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Well, I may not, but science does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And that is just crap...again......explain to us how it is that without guns, South Koreans kill themselves more......please....explain that.

Explain how Japan, china, and countries in Europe kill themselves more...you have to do that to show us you actually have a point.......

Your link is stupid because you can't explain South Korea, Japan, China, ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html



South Korea 24.7

Hungary 21

Japan 19.4

Belgium 18.4

Finland 16.5

France 14.6

Austria 13.8

Poland 13.8

Czec Republic 12.7

New Zealand 11.9

Denmark 11.3

Sweden  11.1

Norway 10.9

Slovac Republic 10.9

Iceland 10.3

Germany 10.3

Canada 10.2

United States 10.1



You are an idiot to keep pushing this in the face of actual truth, facts and reality.....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Well, I may not, but science does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I know, I know, you are a leftist and you think you can just lie and get away with it.......but no, not here....

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide

*There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. *

 According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.:  Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000.  By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.  

Suicide is a mental health issue.  If guns are not available other means are used.  Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the _Washington Post_ (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%). 

Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the _Post _article.  The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited.  Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows:  Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).

Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)

*Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. 

 According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. *


 Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S. 
========

Suicide rates: An overview

Methods of suicide vary by sex and age​Over the past ten years, the most common method of suicide in Canada has been hanging (44%), which includes strangulation and suffocation; followed by poisoning (25%) and firearm use (16%).
Males were most likely to commit suicide by hanging (46%) while females most often died by poisoning (42%) (Chart 2). Males (20%) were far more likely to use firearms than females (3%).


----------



## Canon Shooter (Apr 7, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> But will they return it to you when you are better??



There's no reason not to...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Oh gosh!  Such a NOVEL argument!  Wow.  That's amazing.
> 
> 
> the point about suicides is a bit more subtle.  I'll outline it again since reading doesn't appear to be your forte:
> ...


If a person doesn't give a shit about their life don't try and force me to give a fuck it ain't going to happen.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 7, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> There's no reason not to...


I know there isn't.  But that still doesn't mean that they will.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> If a person doesn't give a shit about their life don't try and force me to give a fuck it ain't going to happen.



Good on you.  I hope  you never experience mental health issues (apart from your current psychopathy).


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And that is just crap...again......explain to us how it is that without guns, South Koreans kill themselves more......please....explain that.
> 
> Explain how Japan, china, and countries in Europe kill themselves more...you have to do that to show us you actually have a point.......
> 
> ...



Feel free to ignore the science as you like.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Feel free to ignore the science as you like.


You are the one ignoring FACTS, again explain how all those countries with hardly any firearms have so much higher suicide rates if firearms to blame


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are the one ignoring FACTS, again explain how all those countries with hardly any firearms have so much higher suicide rates if firearms to blame



I can't read the articles for you.  Sorry.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Apr 7, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I know there isn't.  But that still doesn't mean that they will.



Well, then, I guess if _you _ever feel suicidal you should just hold onto your firearm...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> I can't read the articles for you.  Sorry.


Just answer the question or are you too stupid to understand?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 7, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, then, I guess if _you _ever feel suicidal you should just hold onto your firearm...


I kept mine for 10 years while extremely suicidal


----------



## Failzero (Apr 7, 2022)

Cowboy Guns ( Especially real ones ) are not my cup of tea . I'm into Military Firearms of the second half of the 20th Century .


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 7, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, then, I guess if _you _ever feel suicidal you should just hold onto your firearm...


That's one option.

Another option would be to set up some sort of system where suicidal people can _voluntarily_ and _temporarily_ hand in their guns until they are better.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 7, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That's one option.
> 
> Another option would be to set up some sort of system where suicidal people can _voluntarily_ and _temporarily_ hand in their guns until they are better.


My police  department held my firearms for a while after they got called to my house cause I took pills to kill myself they gave them back well my wife had to collect them they wouldnt give them to me.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Just answer the question or are you too stupid to understand?



Can't understand the articles for you either.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 7, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> My police  department held my firearms for a while after they got called to my house cause I took pills to kill myself they gave them back well my wife had to collect them they wouldnt give them to me.


Not all police departments will do that.  Some police departments will only return someone's guns if a court order forces them to do so.  And not everyone has the resources to go to court and have a judge issue such an order.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Can't understand the articles for you either.


Yup you are too stupid to answer but at least you admit it.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup you are too stupid to answer but at least you admit it.



LOL.  Sure thing.  You got it.  You are just too insightful!  LOL.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> I am struggling here to try to communicate to someone with a cartoon view of mental illness.  I wish I could make this point more clear for you, but I doubt I will be able to.


As I am sure you know, none of this addresses the points I made.  

How do you stop someone who has committed themselves to dying?
If they have committed themselves to dying, how does the absence of a gun prevent them from killing themselves?
If the absence of a gun will not prevent those people from killing themselves, what rational argument is there for making it harder for those who are NOT looking to kill themselves to get a gun?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> How do you stop someone who has committed themselves to dying?



So you didn't read my post?  Gosh.  Does someone need to read it to you?  Maybe help explain the words?



M14 Shooter said:


> If the absence of a gun will not prevent those people from killing themselves, what rational argument is there for making it harder for those who are NOT looking to kill themselves to get a gun?



It really is like you didn't read a word I posted.  Yet you REPLIED to my post.

I wish I could use more simple words.  I can pass it through a filter to make sure I hit your reading level.  Is it 5th or 6th grade?  (4th?)


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> I wish I could use more simple words.  I can pass it through a filter to make sure I hit your reading level.  Is it 5th or 6th grade?  (4th?)


Thank you for making it clear you want to make claims, but not defend them.
As such I need not worry about wasting any more time on you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Feel free to ignore the science as you like.


The people who say follow the science. Also ignore science when it comes to gender Identity. Those people believe their are more than two genders.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Thank you for making it clear you want to make claims, but not defend them.



And thank you for making it clear you can't read.  I am sorry to hear that. 



M14 Shooter said:


> As such I need not worry about wasting any more time on you.



That's great!  Because you don't seem to be worth much time anyway.  Bye!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Good on you.  I hope  you never experience mental health issues (apart from your current psychopathy).


Shrugs it's not your concern Adolph


----------



## daveman (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Good on you.  I hope  you never experience mental health issues (apart from your current psychopathy).


Did you minor in Psychology?


----------



## daveman (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> So you didn't read my post?  Gosh.  Does someone need to read it to you?  Maybe help explain the words?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How do you explain your utter refusal to read items that disagree with your dogma?  Fear?  Yes, that'd do it.  Leftists operate on emotion.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> I am struggling here to try to communicate to someone with a cartoon view of mental illness.  I wish I could make this point more clear for you, but I doubt I will be able to.
> 
> Perhaps you have never been suicidal.  It's not an easy space to navigate.  Sometimes pain can be so intense and come up on you so quickly that you are rendered incapable of rational planning.   If a person struggles with suicidal ideation and then one day the pain simply gets too great they might take actions that, without easy access to a truly lethal form, wouldn't become permanent.
> 
> Would it be too much to suggest you develop some compassion?


Let me help you 
If you're unable to be trusted with a gun you should be locked up and have the key thrown away.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Let me help you
> If you're unable to be trusted with a gun you should be locked up and have the key thrown away.



Clear enough.  Lock up the mentally ill.  "Fuck'em", eh?  That's a pretty decent and caring approach.  I wish you luck with your ministry.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

daveman said:


> Did you minor in Psychology?



Nope.  But life has a way of introducing you to topics that are best left to the professionals.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Clear enough.  Lock up the mentally ill.  "Fuck'em", eh?  That's a pretty decent and caring approach.  I wish you luck with your ministry.


That's right.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

daveman said:


> How do you explain your utter refusal to read items that disagree with your dogma?  Fear?  Yes, that'd do it.  Leftists operate on emotion.



And you don't? 

Huh.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> That's right.



I hope you never have to deal with any heavy issues.  Good luck in life.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Shrugs it's not your concern Adolph



Not sure what the "Adolph" there relates to.  I'm kind of intrigued but since I don't respect you I'm not sure I really want to dig down into it.  Still, even looking into a sewer can be interesting from time to time.

Care to belch out your "deeper meaning"?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> I hope you never have to deal with any heavy issues.  Good luck in life.


It's none of your business


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Not sure what the "Adolph" there relates to.  I'm kind of intrigued but since I don't respect you I'm not sure I really want to dig down into it.  Still, even looking into a sewer can be interesting from time to time.
> 
> Care to belch out your "deeper meaning"?


Adolph as in Hitler it's none of your business Nazi


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It's none of your business



Correct.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Correct.


Nazi


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Adolph as in Hitler it's none of your business Nazi



Oh, sorry, you meant "Adol*f*".  My bad.

Sorry if I touched on a nerve there.  You seem pretty amped up.  Apologies.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nazi



Again, apologies if I touched a nerve.  I understand what that's like.  You are the one, however, who wanted to lock up the mentally ill in Post #250 which is kind of a textbook Nazi thing to do.

But I also understand this is really a sore point for you and I don't want to antagonize you.  Take care.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Oh, sorry, you meant "Adol*f*".  My bad.
> 
> Sorry if I touched on a nerve there.  You seem pretty amped up.  Apologies.


My bad you should know how your idols name is spelled.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Again, apologies if I touched a nerve.  I understand what that's like.  You are the one, however, who wanted to lock up the mentally ill in Post #250 which is kind of a textbook Nazi thing to do.
> 
> But I also understand this is really a sore point for you and I don't want to antagonize you.  Take care.


It's none of your business


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> My bad you should know how your idols name is spelled.



Again, YOU were the one proposing locking up the mentally ill in Post #250.  Perhaps you don't know the history of what the Nazis did to the mentally ill.

Here you go:









						Holocaust Memorial Day: remembering the psychiatric patients who were victims of Nazi persecution
					

David Crepaz-Keay reminds us of the psychiatric patients who were killed in Nazi Germany, how that came about, and implications for the present day.




					www.mentalhealth.org.uk


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It's none of your business



You are correct but you are also EXTREMELY angry right now such that you are lashing out viciously.  Just pump the brakes.  I'm not the enemy here.  

I am OK with talking about mental health struggles as it has affected my family deeply.  I also understand that others are not so willing.  Clearly you are not.  You are hyper defensive and lashing out.  

Just take a breather.  This forum is not necessarily the best place to unwind and reduce stress.

Just remember:  I don't mock mental illness.  I have seen it first hand and I honestly hope that whatever you are dealing with is something you get the support or help you need.  I'm deadly serious about that.


----------



## daveman (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Nope.  But life has a way of introducing you to topics that are best left to the professionals.


Yet you feel competent to judge someone else's mental state, when the root is you just don't like what he says.


----------



## daveman (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> And you don't?
> 
> Huh.


If you'll notice, I'm not the one screeching that someone's a psychopath because they dare disagree with me.


----------



## daveman (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> I don't mock mental illness.


"...(apart from your current psychopathy)..."

Pick one.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

daveman said:


> If you'll notice, I'm not the one screeching that someone's a psychopath because they dare disagree with me.



Ummm, if you actually were tracking I was responding to this post:



bigrebnc1775 said:


> If a person doesn't give a shit about their life don't try and force me to give a fuck it ain't going to happen.



That's a pretty messed up approach to discussing people with suicidal intentions.  

(But I've since come to realize that this poster is extremely angry about this topic and I must apologize to calling it "psychopathic".  It actually now feels more like unhinged anger that might be covering up some deeper pain.  And it wasn't right for me to call their uncaring view of people in mental crisis "psychopathic").


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

daveman said:


> "...(apart from your current psychopathy)..."
> 
> Pick one.


See post #270 (hopefully that will clarify the point).


----------



## daveman (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Ummm, if you actually were tracking I was responding to this post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And oddly, you're still diagnosing.  You just can't help it, can you?


----------



## daveman (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> See post #270 (hopefully that will clarify the point).


Yeah, I read you trying to weasel out of your hypocrisy.  How do you think it went?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

daveman said:


> And oddly, you're still diagnosing.  You just can't help it, can you?



Please just let this go.  The guy is having some issues.  Let's just let this go.  Thanks.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

daveman said:


> Yeah, I read you trying to weasel out of your hypocrisy.  How do you think it went?



I'm serious.  The other poster is pretty amped up and super-angry.  Just drop it.  I'm willing to.  And I've already apologized for my statements.

Just. Let. It. Go.  This isn't your fight and it has nothing to do with you.  Just drop it.  Thanks.


----------



## daveman (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Please just let this go.  The guy is having some issues.  Let's just let this go.  Thanks.


I expect you're far more concerned about your ego than his mental health, but sure.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Again, YOU were the one proposing locking up the mentally ill in Post #250.  Perhaps you don't know the history of what the Nazis did to the mentally ill.
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> ...


If you can't be trusted with a gun you should be locked up or maintained by adult supervision.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Ummm, if you actually were tracking I was responding to this post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My rights will not be held hostage because someone with mental issues is allowed out without supervision.


----------



## Failzero (Apr 7, 2022)

Someone like Joy Behar


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> I'm serious.  The other poster is pretty amped up and super-angry.  Just drop it.  I'm willing to.  And I've already apologized for my statements.
> 
> Just. Let. It. Go.  This isn't your fight and it has nothing to do with you.  Just drop it.  Thanks.


Dr. Phyllis give it a fucking rest. I'm not angry. And you're no doctor. If a person does not give a shit about their life do not try to force me to give a shit.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dr. Phyllis give it a fucking rest. I'm not angry.



You were pretty busy calling me a "Nazi" over and over and over.  You really do sound angry as all hell.  Now you're calling me "Dr. Phyllis".  



bigrebnc1775 said:


> And you're no doctor. If a person does not give a shit about their life do not try to force me to give a shit.



That's the compassion component.  I have difficulty understanding people who carry so much hatred in them that they lash out against even common human decency.  A person in pain is a universal experience.  If one lacks compassion in the face of others pain (even hypothetical) it indicates that there's something more to the statement than just the hatred.

I don't know you. (I don't WANT to know you, you seem pretty unpleasant), but I am quite serious about the whole mental health thing.  You're right, I'm not a psychotherapist.  But your seething hatred bleeds through your posts.  

I honestly and earnestly apologize if I have somehow offended you to the point where you unleash your hatred like this.  

This place definitely engenders a certain degree of nastiness which we all scream at each other.  But I'm actually afraid this particular interchange has gone a bit _too_ far.

Again, my actual, honest, apologies.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

daveman said:


> I expect you're far more concerned about your ego than his mental health, but sure.



Can I ask why you are such an unrelenting dick?  I'm honestly curious.  You just seem to be a dick.  Is that how you are IRL?

Just fuck off.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> You were pretty busy calling me a "Nazi" over and over and over.  You really do sound angry as all hell.  Now you're calling me "Dr. Phyllis".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope wrong not my problem


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> Can I ask why you are such an unrelenting dick?  I'm honestly curious.  You just seem to be a dick.  Is that how you are IRL?
> 
> Just fuck off.


Because you are a nosey little brown shirt


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Because you are a nosey little brown shirt



Hey, sorry, nothing to do with you.  It was a response to another poster who got a bit "nosey" as you say.

(Would it be possible for you to dial back the Nazi stuff?  It's already Godwinned the thread)


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> I have difficulty understanding people who carry so much hatred in them that they lash out against even common human decency.


People who have the right to have guns, who like guns, and who don't want someone to come and steal their guns, will get upset when people propose to do just that.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> People who have the right to have guns, who like guns, and who don't want someone to come and steal their guns, will get upset when people propose to do just that.



That isn't really an excuse to make one lack compassion for others in pain.  

No one is going to take anyone's guns.  But it might be nice if we as a nation kind of tried to come to a common understanding of why we are the way we are in regards to guns.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> No one is going to take anyone's guns.


Correct.

And seeking a solution to the problem of gun crime and violence doesn’t mean more regulations and restrictions.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 7, 2022)

PV System said:


> No one is going to take anyone's guns.


That is true in the sense that the attempts will fail.  But the attempts are in earnest.  Progressives really are trying to take our guns.  They don't even have a reason for doing it.  Progressives just think that it's fun to violate people's civil liberties.

And even though we will defeat all of these attempts, it is still very aggravating to have someone come and try to violate your civil liberties.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> That isn't really an excuse to make one lack compassion for others in pain.
> 
> No one is going to take anyone's guns.  But it might be nice if we as a nation kind of tried to come to a common understanding of why we are the way we are in regards to guns.



That is easy...there are criminals, and there are governments that commit mass murder.  We know this, we also understand human nature and human history.

The ability to protect ourselves from both criminals and an out of control government is why we own guns.........that you and the other leftists don't understand this is why you should never, ever, have power.......


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is true in the sense that the attempts will fail.  But the attempts are in earnest.  Progressives really are trying to take our guns.  They don't even have a reason for doing it.  Progressives just think that it's fun to violate people's civil liberties.



So long as you folks take that view there can be nothing done for the record breaking levels of gun violence in our society.

If you were to actually talk about the opposition in REALISTIC and RATIONAL ways maybe something could be worked out.

The problem is, when the sides get so polarized and the body count keeps rising it ultimately endangers YOUR rights.  Enough Americans get fed up with the gun craziness and YOU WILL lose something.

If you actually try talking to the opposing side instead of making up stupid lies about them you might find that many of us are OK with guns being around.  Just a few more controls on them.



Open Bolt said:


> And even though we will defeat all of these attempts, it is still very aggravating to have someone come and try to violate your civil liberties.



Oh please.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The ability to protect ourselves from both criminals and an out of control government is why we own guns



I'm genuinely curious about this particular fantasy.  Let's say the US government went off the rails and we wound up with a crude fascist dictator in charge.  And he, being Commander in Chief marshalled the US military to take your guns from you...exactly how long do you think you'd be able to hold out?

Ruby Ridge-long?  Or Waco-long?



2aguy said:


> .........that you and the other leftists don't understand this is why you should never, ever, have power.......



It would be tough to have power over a nation in which a large chunk of people live active fantasy lives based on watching one too many John Wayne movies.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> If you were to actually talk about the opposition in REALISTIC and RATIONAL ways maybe something could be worked out.


I do that all the time.  It's the gun control people who never have any interest in talking.




PV System said:


> The problem is, when the sides get so polarized and the body count keeps rising it ultimately endangers YOUR rights.  Enough Americans get fed up with the gun craziness and YOU WILL lose something.


Not a chance.  We have the gun control movement beaten.  We will always win and they will always end up with nothing.

And rightly so.  They are bad people and they deserve to lose.




PV System said:


> If you actually try talking to the opposing side instead of making up stupid lies about them


I don't make anything up.  Everything I say is true.

And like I said, I do plenty of talking.  All they ever do in response to my talking is spout name-calling.




PV System said:


> you might find that many of us are OK with guns being around.  Just a few more controls on them.


Controls that violate our civil liberties.  And for no reason other than the fact that progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.




PV System said:


> Oh please.


You wanted to know why some people get very angry about gun control.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I do that all the time.



Except when you make up lies like characterizing Libs the way you did in the previous post.  



Open Bolt said:


> It's the gun control people who never have any interest in talking.



LOL.  And you guys do? 



Open Bolt said:


> Not a chance.  We have the gun control movement beaten.  We will always win and they will always end up with nothing.



Uh huh.



Open Bolt said:


> I don't make anything up.  Everything I say is true.



If that is what you think.



Open Bolt said:


> And like I said, I do plenty of talking.  All they ever do in response to my talking is spout name-calling.



On this board I've been called any number of names.  Rather nasty ones.  One person calls me a Nazi, another a "shithead".  

You guys are really pretty nice I guess. 



Open Bolt said:


> You wanted to know why some people get very angry about gun control.



And now I know it's because they live in a fantasy world.  Got it.  Thanks.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> So long as you folks take that view there can be nothing done for the record breaking levels of gun violence in our society.
> 
> If you were to actually talk about the opposition in REALISTIC and RATIONAL ways maybe something could be worked out.
> 
> ...




There is absolutely something that we can do....vote out the democrats.....the democrat party has damaged our police, and they keep releasing the most violent gun offenders over and over again...

If we stop them, we lower our gun crime rate by about 95%....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> I'm genuinely curious about this particular fantasy.  Let's say the US government went off the rails and we wound up with a crude fascist dictator in charge.  And he, being Commander in Chief marshalled the US military to take your guns from you...exactly how long do you think you'd be able to hold out?
> 
> Ruby Ridge-long?  Or Waco-long?
> 
> ...




A lot longer than the Vietnamese, and Afghanis...........since we have more guns, better resources, better trained, better educated people......


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

2aguy said:


> There is absolutely something that we can do....vote out the democrats.....



Facile argument lacking any rational support.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Facile argument lacking any rational support.




You really are an idiot....

Our gun crime problem is a direct result of democrat party policies.....without the democrats releasing violent gun offenders over and over again, and attacking the police, our gun crime would be at the low level it was in 2015...before the democrats went into over drive to drive up violent crime before the election...


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

2aguy said:


> A lot longer than the Vietnamese, and Afghanis



Really?  *Here's why I doubt that very highly:  *The Afghanis have known nothing but war and horror since the late 1970's.  The fighters we helped develop in the 1980's turned into the Taliban and they do nothing but fight and hate.  They live in CAVES.  These people are far stronger than the US's "Gravy Seals".  The guys who stormed the capital to overturn the election they actually believed was stolen could only hold out *for one afternoon*.

LOL.

You think you can "hold out" against the US Military?  LOL. Not very long before you'd be whining for a ceasefire so that  beer and nacho chips could be shipped in



2aguy said:


> ...........since we have more guns, better resources, better trained, better educated people......



First: you likely DON'T have better weapons since the Afghanis and Taliban had all the left over Soviet weapons and half of the US lost weapons.  Yeah, the Americans are far more educated but that won't help for long-term.  As for "better trained", well, let's see, the Gravy Seals tend to THINK they are training, but they aren't living in the high desert of Afghanistan 24/7/365.  They really don't know what training is compared to people who have literally spent their entire lives shooting and killing people in realtime.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You really are an idiot....


At least I don't rest on simplistic arguments.



2aguy said:


> Our gun crime problem is a direct result of democrat party policies



Is that why it has been high regardless of who is charge of the US government?  



2aguy said:


> .....without the democrats releasing violent gun offenders over and over again, and attacking the police, our gun crime would be at the low level it was in 2015...before the democrats went into over drive to drive up violent crime before the election...



LOL.

It was under Clinton that the 3 strikes thing went into effect.  Unless you forgot.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> At least I don't rest on simplistic arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Moron....

Over  27 years,  from 1993  to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...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........

Starting in 2015, the democrat party decided to attack the police, and to ramp up releasing violent criminals no matter how many times they have been arrested for gun crimes...

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..........


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron....



Is this part of your complaint about Leftists always calling you names?  Maybe if YOU didn't call others names, you wouldn't have people call you names.

Perhaps you WANT people to call you "Hypocrite"?



2aguy said:


> 2)  The democrat party keeps attacking the police



Actually what they do attack are those police who decide that murdering a suspect on the street in broad daylight for the horrific offense of maybe passing a counterfiet $20 or selling loose cigarettes is proper policing.

If you think that is "good policing" then you and I have a very different view of the role of the police.



2aguy said:


> .....driving the officers into not doing pro-active policing, cutting detective forces so that murders go unsolved..........



And by "pro-active" policing I guess you mean "Stop and Frisk"?  A notoriously racist policy which drove more and more black people to distrust police?

Or do you mean the policy of stopping all people who are "Driving While Black"?

Or perhaps you mean no-knock warrants that wind up killing sleeping people in other rooms?

Or the pro-active "murder the suspect on the street" approach?

And you wonder why minorities are not happy with Officer Friendly.


----------



## daveman (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Can I ask why you are such an unrelenting dick?  I'm honestly curious.  You just seem to be a dick.  Is that how you are IRL?
> 
> Just fuck off.


Now YOU sound angry.  And more than a little confused.  You want me to answer a question, and you want me to fuck off.  

Pick one.


----------



## daveman (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> So long as you folks take that view there can be nothing done for the record breaking levels of gun violence in our society.
> 
> If you were to actually talk about the opposition in REALISTIC and RATIONAL ways maybe something could be worked out.
> 
> ...


It's always "just a few more common sense controls". And when criminals don't start obeying the law, you want "just a few more common sense controls".

It won't stop until you've got law-abiding people disarmed.


----------



## daveman (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> I'm genuinely curious about this particular fantasy.  Let's say the US government went off the rails and we wound up with a crude fascist dictator in charge.  And he, being Commander in Chief marshalled the US military to take your guns from you...exactly how long do you think you'd be able to hold out?
> 
> Ruby Ridge-long?  Or Waco-long?
> 
> ...


With a few exceptions, the US Military is not going to take the side of leftists.  You seem to think that Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coastguardsmen will fire on their fellow citizens -- their own friends and family.  That's your particular fantasy, and it's ludicrous.  They'd rather shoot the officers who give them those orders.


----------



## daveman (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Facile argument lacking any rational support.


How many Democrats are calling for more gun control versus how many Republicans?

You don't want serious discussion.  Stop pretending you do.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

daveman said:


> With a few exceptions, the US Military is not going to take the side of leftists.



I didn't realize that the military was in the habit of simply ignoring orders from the Commander in Chief.

Do tell!  Sounds like a pretty loosey-goosey undisciplined group.



daveman said:


> You seem to think that Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coastguardsmen will fire on their fellow citizens



And the original idea was that the government was corrupt so individuals need to arm themselves.  Who do you think the individuals are going to fight in this corrupt government?  Do they only think they will have to gun down senators and representative?



daveman said:


> -- their own friends and family.  That's your particular fantasy, and it's ludicrous.  They'd rather shoot the officers who give them those orders.



Because that's how it's ALWAYS happened when dictators take over and corrupt the government.  Oh, wait, no, it almost NEVER happens that way.

Good luck with your confused fever dreams.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

daveman said:


> You don't want serious discussion.  Stop pretending you do.



You guys want a serious discussion? Huh.  I guess after being called a "nazi" and "shithead" and "moron" so many times here I simply assumed you guys just wanted to vent your enormous spleen based on your imaginary fears.

LOL


----------



## daveman (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> The guys who stormed the capital to overturn the election they actually believed was stolen could only hold out *for one afternoon*.
> 
> LOL.


They weren't armed.


PV System said:


> You think you can "hold out" against the US Military?  LOL. Not very long before you'd be whining for a ceasefire so that  beer and nacho chips could be shipped in


The US Military isn't going to fight your battles for you.  You're going to have to do it yourself.  You feel up to it?


PV System said:


> First: you likely DON'T have better weapons since the Afghanis and Taliban had all the left over Soviet weapons and half of the US lost weapons.  Yeah, the Americans are far more educated but that won't help for long-term.  As for "better trained", well, let's see, the Gravy Seals tend to THINK they are training, but they aren't living in the high desert of Afghanistan 24/7/365.  They really don't know what training is compared to people who have literally spent their entire lives shooting and killing people in realtime.


They know what training is compared to American leftists, who think whining on the internet is an effective weapon.


----------



## daveman (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> I didn't realize that the military was in the habit of simply ignoring orders from the Commander in Chief.
> 
> Do tell!  Sounds like a pretty loosey-goosey undisciplined group.
> 
> ...


Tell me you've never served in uniform without saying you've never served in uniform.


----------



## daveman (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> You guys want a serious discussion? Huh.  I guess after being called a "nazi" and "shithead" and "moron" so many times here I simply assumed you guys just wanted to vent your enormous spleen based on your imaginary fears.
> 
> LOL


Dude.  It's words on a screen.  Grow up.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

daveman said:


> It's always "just a few more common sense controls". And when criminals don't start obeying the law, you want "just a few more common sense controls".
> 
> It won't stop until you've got law-abiding people disarmed.



OK...so how do YOU, in your immense knowledge, think we need to handle the off-the-charts levels of gun homicides in this country?

We lead the developed first world (often by orders of magnitude) in per capita gun homicides.  

What do you propose we do? 

(To save you some time I'm going to list the things we already do):

1. We have established the school-to-prison pipeline leading to record levels of incarceration, ESPECIALLY of black men (waaaay beyond their proportion in regular society)

2. We lead the world in terms of prison population (we can't even keep up with the number of prisoners we keep throwing in jail)

So what else do we need to do?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

daveman said:


> Tell me you've never served in uniform without saying you've never served in uniform.



If I had served in uniform you think I would have disobeyed orders?  Is that what you think?

Interesting.  I honestly never knew that disobeying orders from a superior officer was so common!

Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> OK...so how do YOU, in your immense knowledge, think we need to handle the off-the-charts levels of gun homicides in this country?
> 
> We lead the developed first world (often by orders of magnitude) in per capita gun homicides.
> 
> ...


False premise our murder rates are not off the charts.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

daveman said:


> Dude.  It's words on a screen.  Grow up.



Oh, so you don't know what you're typing when you write.  Got it.  

And how do you propose to have a "serious discussion" calling people names?

Methinks you are not the sharpest tool in the shed.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> False premise our murder rates are not off the charts.



You need to read what I actually wrote.  Our *gun homicide rates* are many times higher than any other developed first world nation.

Don't believe me?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Our *gun homicide rates* are many times higher than any other developed first world nation.


True.

But conservatives believe – incorrectly – that such facts will be used to ‘justify’ more firearm regulatory measures, which is both false and a lie.

Instead, conservatives ignore the facts and propagate lies about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 8, 2022)

Still not off the charts. 11000 a year out of 330 million is small indeed.


----------



## daveman (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> OK...so how do YOU, in your immense knowledge, think we need to handle the off-the-charts levels of gun homicides in this country?
> 
> We lead the developed first world (often by orders of magnitude) in per capita gun homicides.
> 
> ...


We need to stop criminalizing self-defense with firearms.  Enact Constitutional open- and concealed-carry throughout all the States.  

Crime will go down when the criminals realize their poor choices may cost them their lives.


----------



## daveman (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> If I had served in uniform you think I would have disobeyed orders?  Is that what you think?
> 
> Interesting.  I honestly never knew that disobeying orders from a superior officer was so common!
> 
> Thanks for the heads up.


Oh, no, I can quite believe you'd be happy to fire on your fellow Americans if you were told to.


----------



## daveman (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Oh, so you don't know what you're typing when you write.  Got it.


There is absolutely no way in hell to get that impression from anything I wrote.  This is just you pretending to be smart.

It's not working.


PV System said:


> And how do you propose to have a "serious discussion" calling people names?
> 
> Methinks you are not the sharpest tool in the shed.


You don't "thinks" at all.  You emote.  You get angry about words on a screen.  You get angry that people disagree with you.  You're little more than a toddler who's been told to take a nap.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Except when you make up lies like characterizing Libs the way you did in the previous post.


No lies.  My characterizations are completely accurate.

Progressives are not liberals.  They should not be allowed to get away with calling themselves liberals.




PV System said:


> LOL.  And you guys do?


I'm here ready to talk if any of the enemy wants to have a civil discussion with me.




PV System said:


> If that is what you think.


It's the truth.




PV System said:


> On this board I've been called any number of names.  Rather nasty ones.  One person calls me a Nazi, another a "shithead".
> You guys are really pretty nice I guess.


Some people get upset when someone tries to violate their civil liberties.




PV System said:


> And now I know it's because they live in a fantasy world.  Got it.  Thanks.


No.  It is because they get upset when someone tries to violate their civil liberties.




PV System said:


> Facile argument lacking any rational support.


That is incorrect.  He made a good case that it is the left that are the problem.




PV System said:


> Or perhaps you mean no-knock warrants that wind up killing sleeping people in other rooms?


No knock warrants are a bad idea that also kill innocent white people.




PV System said:


> Or the pro-active "murder the suspect on the street" approach?


Self defense is hardly murder.




PV System said:


> And you wonder why minorities are not happy with Officer Friendly.


I used to care about minorities.  After all the abuse and attacks against white people in recent years, I've stopped caring.




PV System said:


> OK...so how do YOU, in your immense knowledge, think we need to handle the off-the-charts levels of gun homicides in this country?


There is nothing that needs to be handled.  It doesn't matter that people are killed with a gun versus some other sort of weapon.  The victim is just as dead either way.




PV System said:


> We lead the developed first world (often by orders of magnitude) in per capita gun homicides.


So what?




PV System said:


> What do you propose we do?


Regarding gun homicides, nothing at all.

I do have an idea about how to help with suicides.  We've already gone over it though.


----------

