CDZ Concealed Carry Ethics, Obligations and Mindset

[2aguy]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

That is a lie.......guns are not the issue.......the actual issue in shootings in the home......prior criminal history of the occupant, drug use of the occupant, alcohol abuse of the occupant, current criminal history of the occupant....

If you are a normal person, who is law abiding....guns are not dangerous to your family. The anti gun research targeted the worst communities to do their studies....and then said that applied to normal, law abiding gun owners....

That is one of the first examples of the anti gun Bait and Switch.........

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

Guns contained the shooter.....do you even think before you post....

And no one says guns are harmless....you guys say that guns create activity...that normal people will turn into murderers simply because they have a gun.....

And I have given you 40 years of actual research along with just a few stories of people using guns to stop actual mass shooters v. stories where the people did not have guns to stop mass shooters....and you can see the difference in body counts.....

 

[2aguy]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

Those statistics are not supported by facts. In other words they are made up to advance a political agenda.

Another example of debate in a "post-factual democracy" /\/\/\

There is no political agenda associated with the statistics. They are facts. You're less likely to die from gunfire if you DON'T own a gun. Period.

Wrong. There most certainly IS a political agenda when the group putting out those "statisitics" lies about them, and the only reason to lie about them is because of the agenda. The groups pushing those "stats" are overwhelmingly anti gun groups. Why do you resort to lies if your arguments is so strong?

LMAO, I provide you with a fact-base study that has verified its methodology, and you respond with a crybaby rant with zero substance.

At the same time, you ping my messages for lacking substance. You're a substantial piece of shit.

You have been given fact based research...it shows you are wrong...so you pretend it doesn't exist....

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

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

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[2aguy]

The CDC didn't do a gun-specific study. They did a death study. Congress has already specifically refused to allow funding for a gun-specific study because they're scared of the results.

Yes, they have......you have been shown the research over and over again......but you simply parrot the anti gun meme over and over again.....

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


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

The Deleware study of 2015...

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.

 

[GaryDog]

The NRA and gun industry funds those studies about defensive uses and has an interest in inflating the numbers.

Meanwhile, charitable non-profits that DO NOT depend on their data to affect their income report differently:

15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year

 

[GaryDog]

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

That is a lie.......guns are not the issue.......the actual issue in shootings in the home......prior criminal history of the occupant, drug use of the occupant, alcohol abuse of the occupant, current criminal history of the occupant....

If you are a normal person, who is law abiding....guns are not dangerous to your family. The anti gun research targeted the worst communities to do their studies....and then said that applied to normal, law abiding gun owners....

That is one of the first examples of the anti gun Bait and Switch.........

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

Guns contained the shooter.....do you even think before you post....

And no one says guns are harmless....you guys say that guns create activity...that normal people will turn into murderers simply because they have a gun.....

And I have given you 40 years of actual research along with just a few stories of people using guns to stop actual mass shooters v. stories where the people did not have guns to stop mass shooters....and you can see the difference in body counts.....

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The NRA and gun industry funds those studies about defensive uses and has an interest in inflating the numbers.
Meanwhile, charitable non-profits that DO NOT depend on their data to affect their income report differently:
15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year

You still have not answered my question.
Is this because you cannot, or you know that to do so ruins your position?
How many more guns were there in the US in 2014 than in 1997?

 

[2aguy]

The NRA and gun industry funds those studies about defensive uses and has an interest in inflating the numbers.

Meanwhile, charitable non-profits that DO NOT depend on their data to affect their income report differently:

15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year

Guy......obama had his CDC study all gun research in 2013...spent 10 million dollars doing it....

bill clinton had his Department of Justice do gun self defense research in the 90s....they are not the NRA.....of those studies shown many are by anti gun researchers....

keep grasping at straws...the truth and the facts say you are wrong on everything you believe about guns....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

Why do you post such nonsense?
A firearm has no capacity whatsoever to "turn" anyone into anything.

.

 

[GaryDog]

The NRA and gun industry funds those studies about defensive uses and has an interest in inflating the numbers.

Meanwhile, charitable non-profits that DO NOT depend on their data to affect their income report differently:

15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year

Guy......obama had his CDC study all gun research in 2013...spent 10 million dollars doing it....

bill clinton had his Department of Justice do gun self defense research in the 90s....they are not the NRA.....of those studies shown many are by anti gun researchers....

keep grasping at straws...the truth and the facts say you are wrong on everything you believe about guns....

Again, that was not a gun study. The CDC has been explicitly instructed not to TOUCH that subject:

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

 

[2aguy]

That is a lie.......guns are not the issue.......the actual issue in shootings in the home......prior criminal history of the occupant, drug use of the occupant, alcohol abuse of the occupant, current criminal history of the occupant....

If you are a normal person, who is law abiding....guns are not dangerous to your family. The anti gun research targeted the worst communities to do their studies....and then said that applied to normal, law abiding gun owners....

That is one of the first examples of the anti gun Bait and Switch.........

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

Guns contained the shooter.....do you even think before you post....

And no one says guns are harmless....you guys say that guns create activity...that normal people will turn into murderers simply because they have a gun.....

And I have given you 40 years of actual research along with just a few stories of people using guns to stop actual mass shooters v. stories where the people did not have guns to stop mass shooters....and you can see the difference in body counts.....

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

Wrong....

part 2 of a review of gun control issues.....includes who actually commits murder...great info.....

Public Health and Gun Control --- A Review (Part II: Gun Violence and Constitutional Issues) | Hacienda Publishing


Another favorite view of the gun control, public health establishment is the myth propounded by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former head of the NCIPC of the CDC, who has written: "Most of the perpetrators of violence are not criminals by trade or profession. Indeed, in the area of domestic violence, most of the perpetrators are never accused of any crime. The victims and perpetrators are ourselves --- ordinary citizens, students, professionals, and even public health workers."(6)

That statement is contradicted by available data, government data. The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder.


(17) The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.(18)


Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed (e.g., concealed carry permit holders) law-abiding citizens.(11)

Violent crimes continue to be a problem in the inner cities with gangs involved in the drug trade. Crimes in rural areas for both blacks and whites, despite the preponderance of guns in this setting, remain low.(11,19)



Gun availability does not cause crime. Prohibitionist government policies and gun control (rather than crime control) exacerbates the problem by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property. In fact, there was a modest increase in both homicide and suicide after prohibition and passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.(20)

http://m.wcvb.com/news/brockton-man-arrested-a-third-time-in-15-months-on-gun-charges/37728640

 

[GaryDog]

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

Why do you post such nonsense?
A firearm has no capacity whatsoever to "turn" anyone into anything.

.

So you'd exhibit the same amount of fear of a person who was crazy whether they had a gun or not?

 

[GaryDog]

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

Guns contained the shooter.....do you even think before you post....

And no one says guns are harmless....you guys say that guns create activity...that normal people will turn into murderers simply because they have a gun.....

And I have given you 40 years of actual research along with just a few stories of people using guns to stop actual mass shooters v. stories where the people did not have guns to stop mass shooters....and you can see the difference in body counts.....

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

Wrong....

part 2 of a review of gun control issues.....includes who actually commits murder...great info.....

Public Health and Gun Control --- A Review (Part II: Gun Violence and Constitutional Issues) | Hacienda Publishing


Another favorite view of the gun control, public health establishment is the myth propounded by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former head of the NCIPC of the CDC, who has written: "Most of the perpetrators of violence are not criminals by trade or profession. Indeed, in the area of domestic violence, most of the perpetrators are never accused of any crime. The victims and perpetrators are ourselves --- ordinary citizens, students, professionals, and even public health workers."(6)

That statement is contradicted by available data, government data. The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder.


(17) The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.(18)


Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed (e.g., concealed carry permit holders) law-abiding citizens.(11)

Violent crimes continue to be a problem in the inner cities with gangs involved in the drug trade. Crimes in rural areas for both blacks and whites, despite the preponderance of guns in this setting, remain low.(11,19)



Gun availability does not cause crime. Prohibitionist government policies and gun control (rather than crime control) exacerbates the problem by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property. In fact, there was a modest increase in both homicide and suicide after prohibition and passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.(20)

Sorry, but your constant vomiting of prepared propaganda on this issue is not convincing, particularly when the stats you spew are not relevant to the discussion.

 

[2aguy]

That is a lie.......guns are not the issue.......the actual issue in shootings in the home......prior criminal history of the occupant, drug use of the occupant, alcohol abuse of the occupant, current criminal history of the occupant....

If you are a normal person, who is law abiding....guns are not dangerous to your family. The anti gun research targeted the worst communities to do their studies....and then said that applied to normal, law abiding gun owners....

That is one of the first examples of the anti gun Bait and Switch.........

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

Guns contained the shooter.....do you even think before you post....

And no one says guns are harmless....you guys say that guns create activity...that normal people will turn into murderers simply because they have a gun.....

And I have given you 40 years of actual research along with just a few stories of people using guns to stop actual mass shooters v. stories where the people did not have guns to stop mass shooters....and you can see the difference in body counts.....

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

And this....normal people are not turned into killers because of guns...otherwise with 357,000,000 guns in private hands we would have far more murder...and the murder rate would not be going down as more people buy guns....

Public Health Pot Shots

this article goes at kellerman extensively and his crap research.....and here is some work on who actually kills people...




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



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

Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

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



According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."

A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicinereported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.



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

 

[GaryDog]

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

Guns contained the shooter.....do you even think before you post....

And no one says guns are harmless....you guys say that guns create activity...that normal people will turn into murderers simply because they have a gun.....

And I have given you 40 years of actual research along with just a few stories of people using guns to stop actual mass shooters v. stories where the people did not have guns to stop mass shooters....and you can see the difference in body counts.....

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

And this....normal people are not turned into killers because of guns...otherwise with 357,000,000 guns in private hands we would have far more murder...and the murder rate would not be going down as more people buy guns....

Public Health Pot Shots

this article goes at kellerman extensively and his crap research.....and here is some work on who actually kills people...




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



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

Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

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



According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."

A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicinereported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.



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

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed. 2015 was a huge year, despite fewer people owning guns.

 

[2aguy]

The NRA and gun industry funds those studies about defensive uses and has an interest in inflating the numbers.

Meanwhile, charitable non-profits that DO NOT depend on their data to affect their income report differently:

15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year

Guy......obama had his CDC study all gun research in 2013...spent 10 million dollars doing it....

bill clinton had his Department of Justice do gun self defense research in the 90s....they are not the NRA.....of those studies shown many are by anti gun researchers....

keep grasping at straws...the truth and the facts say you are wrong on everything you believe about guns....

Again, that was not a gun study. The CDC has been explicitly instructed not to TOUCH that subject:

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

You have been shown study after study......the CDC can't use their research to promote gun control...which they were doing in the 1990s......refusing to look at research that showed guns were useful......

you are not paying attention....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

Why do you post such nonsense?
A firearm has no capacity whatsoever to "turn" anyone into anything.

So you'd exhibit the same amount of fear of a person who was crazy whether they had a gun or not?

Nothing here changes the fact that you know a firearm has no capacity whatsoever to "turn" anyone into anything.
Why do you argue such nonsense?

You still have not answered my question.
Is this because you cannot, or you know that to do so ruins your position?
How many more guns were there in the US in 2014 than in 1997?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed.

You cannot prove this to be true.

 

[GaryDog]

I have never met a crazier group of people than gun zealots. Wow. Hell, one of you even names yourself after a gun.

What is it about guns that you people love so much? The visceral power that you can't get from merely being a man?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have never met a crazier group of people than gun zealots. Wow. Hell, one of you even names yourself after a gun.
What is it about guns that you people love so much? The visceral power that you can't get from merely being a man?

You still have not answered my question.
Is this because you cannot, or you know that to do so ruins your position?
How many more guns were there in the US in 2014 than in 1997?

 

[2aguy]

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

Guns contained the shooter.....do you even think before you post....

And no one says guns are harmless....you guys say that guns create activity...that normal people will turn into murderers simply because they have a gun.....

And I have given you 40 years of actual research along with just a few stories of people using guns to stop actual mass shooters v. stories where the people did not have guns to stop mass shooters....and you can see the difference in body counts.....

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

And this....normal people are not turned into killers because of guns...otherwise with 357,000,000 guns in private hands we would have far more murder...and the murder rate would not be going down as more people buy guns....

Public Health Pot Shots

this article goes at kellerman extensively and his crap research.....and here is some work on who actually kills people...




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



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

Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

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



According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."

A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicinereported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.



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

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed. 2015 was a huge year, despite fewer people owning guns.

No....2015 is going to be a big year because cops are not being active against criminals because of the Ferguson effect, and obama has cut federal gun prosecutions by 30% and he is releasing convicted felons....that is why 2015 will be a higher gun murder year........since every year up to 2015 has shown a decrease in gun murder.....

And since we know he used Fast and Furious to try to restart gun control...we know he is using black lies murder and a reduction in gun crime prosecutions to increase the gun murder rate in major cities....so they can kick off a new wave of gun control.