CDZ Fear and guns....a discussion.

[Rouge Rover]

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

The study was requested by a sitting POTUS to further an agenda. If the CDC was serious about preventing deaths, they would be looking at our psychiatric/mental health status. THAT is the reason why people kill. It's not because of the tool they chose to carry out their murders. The tool is not the cause of the violence. It doesn't take a doctor or a CDC employee (who a lot are just BUREAUCRATS anyways), or a genius to know this.

I have to disagree here, the CDC shouldn't be dealing with psychiatric issues either.

Well, mental illness is considered a disease, and after you have been around this forum for a bit, you will see what a HUGE epidemic it really is. Lol.

lol, I hear ya. The CDC is all about disease control. If they determine something to be a disease then what happens next? I'm guessing control. That's why I think all of the anti-gunners who want the CDC involved are dishonest and full of it.

Let's go one step further. Your psychological argument. If a "disease" is determined to exist where do you think the first place they'll want to exercise control will be? I'm guessing the schools. That's what I'd do.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

And are you one of those people who goes around ranting about the police being racists and "institutionalized racism?"

Are you utterly incapable of focusing on a single subject. Or are you simply incapable of admitting when anyone makes a point you disagree with? For the record, no, I don't complain about police racism or institutional racism. See? I answered you question. Now answer mine. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find if they conduct further research? Yes or no.

What do you think I would be afraid of?? The point is, they already had an opportunity to "find something bad." They failed to do so. In fact, the study came out supporting the use of guns for self defense in many circumstances. Much more than what was originally thought, in fact.

What more would you like them to study? Is there something else?

Me? I don't set priorities for the CDC. I want them to study what THEY feel is relevant to their mission to prevent death. They think there is something else to study. Their 2012 report was a PRELIMINARY study, done under executive order. It contained surprises for all, which indicates their willingness to seek out the truth. If you don't think they will seek the truth, wherever it takes them, then you are paranoid. If you do believe they will seek out the truth, what are you afraid of? Let them do their work.

 

[Rouge Rover]

I think that's naive. A POTUS who has a clear anti-gun bias tells his employees to research and you believe they were seeking the truth?

 

[Elvis Obama]

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

The study was requested by a sitting POTUS to further an agenda. If the CDC was serious about preventing deaths, they would be looking at our psychiatric/mental health status. THAT is the reason why people kill. It's not because of the tool they chose to carry out their murders. The tool is not the cause of the violence. It doesn't take a doctor or a CDC employee (who a lot are just BUREAUCRATS anyways), or a genius to know this.

Again, why do you think you're the smartest person in the world? I don't know what the CDC will find, and neither do you. I don't know what recommendations they will come up with and neither do you. I am not afraid of letting them do their research, but you are.

Mental health and suicide prevention are well within the CDC's bailiwick. I would suspect that their studies will concentrate mostly on suicide prevention. That's the cause of 2/3 of gun deaths.

 

[Rouge Rover]

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

The study was requested by a sitting POTUS to further an agenda. If the CDC was serious about preventing deaths, they would be looking at our psychiatric/mental health status. THAT is the reason why people kill. It's not because of the tool they chose to carry out their murders. The tool is not the cause of the violence. It doesn't take a doctor or a CDC employee (who a lot are just BUREAUCRATS anyways), or a genius to know this.

Again, why do you think you're the smartest person in the world? I don't know what the CDC will find, and neither do you. I don't know what recommendations they will come up with and neither do you. I am not afraid of letting them do their research, but you are.

Mental health and suicide prevention are well within the CDC's bailiwick. I would suspect that their studies will concentrate mostly on suicide prevention. That's the cause of 2/3 of gun deaths.

I disagree with you and you go with the "you think you're the smartest person in the world" card? Good form bro.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I think that's naive. A POTUS who has a clear anti-gun bias tells his employees to research and you believe they were seeking the truth?

Yes. Their findings seem to back up the claim that guns in private residences prevent more death than they cause. That's an important finding. It is not what the most extreme anti-gun people wanted. I am not anti-gun, I am only anti-death. So is the CDC. If you believe they tailored their findings to please Obama, you're paranoid. Clearly they did not.

 

[Rouge Rover]

I think that's naive. A POTUS who has a clear anti-gun bias tells his employees to research and you believe they were seeking the truth?

Yes. Their findings seem to back up the claim that guns in private residences prevent more death than they cause. That's an important finding. It is not what the most extreme anti-gun people wanted. I am not anti-gun, I am only anti-death. So is the CDC. If you believe they tailored their finding to please Obama, you're paranoid. Clearly they did not.

I've already laid out my reasons for not wanting the CDC involved in this. I would have done that for you but you didn't want to answer simple questions about your allegedly strongly held beliefs so I had to do that with another member. Read up on that, answer my questions about how you see the CDC...then we can deal with the rest.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

The study was requested by a sitting POTUS to further an agenda. If the CDC was serious about preventing deaths, they would be looking at our psychiatric/mental health status. THAT is the reason why people kill. It's not because of the tool they chose to carry out their murders. The tool is not the cause of the violence. It doesn't take a doctor or a CDC employee (who a lot are just BUREAUCRATS anyways), or a genius to know this.

Again, why do you think you're the smartest person in the world? I don't know what the CDC will find, and neither do you. I don't know what recommendations they will come up with and neither do you. I am not afraid of letting them do their research, but you are.

Mental health and suicide prevention are well within the CDC's bailiwick. I would suspect that their studies will concentrate mostly on suicide prevention. That's the cause of 2/3 of gun deaths.

I disagree with you and you go with the "you think you're the smartest person in the world" card? Good form bro.

I'm not the one who claims he knows things he does not. You do. You're not qualified to tell doctors what their job is.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I think that's naive. A POTUS who has a clear anti-gun bias tells his employees to research and you believe they were seeking the truth?

Yes. Their findings seem to back up the claim that guns in private residences prevent more death than they cause. That's an important finding. It is not what the most extreme anti-gun people wanted. I am not anti-gun, I am only anti-death. So is the CDC. If you believe they tailored their finding to please Obama, you're paranoid. Clearly they did not.

I've already laid out my reasons for not wanting the CDC involved in this. I would have done that for you but you didn't want to answer simple questions about your allegedly strongly held beliefs so I had to do that with another member. Read up on that, answer my questions about how you see the CDC...then we can deal with the rest.

Ah, assigned reading! I love it! Do you want to provide a link, or do you expect me to search through this entire thread?

 

[Rouge Rover]

I think that's naive. A POTUS who has a clear anti-gun bias tells his employees to research and you believe they were seeking the truth?

Yes. Their findings seem to back up the claim that guns in private residences prevent more death than they cause. That's an important finding. It is not what the most extreme anti-gun people wanted. I am not anti-gun, I am only anti-death. So is the CDC. If you believe they tailored their finding to please Obama, you're paranoid. Clearly they did not.

I've already laid out my reasons for not wanting the CDC involved in this. I would have done that for you but you didn't want to answer simple questions about your allegedly strongly held beliefs so I had to do that with another member. Read up on that, answer my questions about how you see the CDC...then we can deal with the rest.

Ah, assigned reading! I love it! Do you want to provide a link, or do you expect me to search through this entire thread?

You need a link for the CDC website?

 

[Elvis Obama]

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

It is a political move and a political issue. Mass shootings are less than 0.1% of ALL deaths in the United States.

What is a political move? The CDC studying gun deaths? You just admitted that their preliminary study backs up some of your beliefs. Mass shootings have not been mentioned, and have nothing to do with this discussion. It's up to the CDC to determine where their efforts are best focused, not a bunch of know-it-alls on a forum board.

I believe that the CDC should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

Just because it turned out in favor of the people instead of the government does not mean it was NOT politically motivated. Of course it was! Come on! If you can't be honest about that fact, then I'm sorry, I have to consider you to be a dishonest individual with an agenda that goes against the rights of we the people of the United States of America.

Politically motivated? Of course it was politically motivated. Unfortunately you have no idea what that means. Elected representative are responsible to their constituents. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a problem. Elected representative are responsible for addressing problems like that. What you mean when you say "politically motivated" is a vast conspiracy to violate your rights. That is paranoia . The CDC report was unbiased. Period. It was not the "ammunition" that the most rabid anti-gun people wanted. If the CDC were in their pocket, they would have produced the conclusions those people wanted. They did not.

How in the world can you cite the CDC findings as proof of what you believe, then claim they are not being honest?

 

[Rouge Rover]

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

It is a political move and a political issue. Mass shootings are less than 0.1% of ALL deaths in the United States.

What is a political move? The CDC studying gun deaths? You just admitted that their preliminary study backs up some of your beliefs. Mass shootings have not been mentioned, and have nothing to do with this discussion. It's up to the CDC to determine where their efforts are best focused, not a bunch of know-it-alls on a forum board.

I believe that the CDC should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

Just because it turned out in favor of the people instead of the government does not mean it was NOT politically motivated. Of course it was! Come on! If you can't be honest about that fact, then I'm sorry, I have to consider you to be a dishonest individual with an agenda that goes against the rights of we the people of the United States of America.

Politically motivated? Of course it was politically motivated. Unfortunately you have no idea what that means. Elected representative are responsible to their constituents. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a problem. Elected representative are responsible for addressing problems like that. What you mean when you say "politically motivated" is a vast conspiracy to violate your rights. That is paranoia . The CDC report was unbiased. Period. It was not the "ammunition" that the most rabid anti-gun people wanted. If the CDC were in their pocket, they would have produced the conclusions those people wanted. They did not.

How in the world can you cite the CDC findings as proof of what you believe, then claim they are not being honest?

Are CDC employees elected?

 

[charwin95]

Carrying a gun when going into a situation that could be dangerous is rational. Carrying a gun every moment you are outside your door... that is fear.

And the woman who was raped in the college parking lot, 50 ft. from the campus police station. She had to leave her gun at home that night because the campus was a gun free zone....except for the rapist....he brought his gun there....

Do you think she was dumb to want to carry her gun on campus that night?

And the rapist.....raped 3 other women after that woman, and murdered the 3rd...........so the gun free zone very likely contributed to several rapes and one murder....

I am very familiar with this case. You and I went over this before. You did not mentioned here that she was caught by surprised from behind to fit your agenda....... A rapist or thugs will NEVER make an announcement I'm going to rape you in 15 minutes..... I think you don't know that.....
Even if she carried her gun with her. Where do you think her gun was tucked or carry with her? In her vagina? Walking around with a gun in her hand? Have you seen anyone walking to parking lot with a gun in their hand? For you to make this kind of example to fit your propaganda is pathetic.
I also told you maybe this is the third time that I got rob by 2 thugs in Atlantic city casino parking lots.
If I had my gun with me in my waist. My chances of pulling my gun unlock the safety then fire..... is zero.... none...... no chance........ But 100% they could have killed me.

What's pathetic is you wanting to leave women unarmed and defenseless because you are afraid of guns. THAT is pathetic.

What in the world are you talking about woman?
Read my hips...... Where in the world I say women should stop protecting themselves? You are way off and pathetic and dumb.

Read your hips?

My point stands, you have no say in my decision. It's a personal decision that each person makes, as is their right to do so.

Bringing up criminals does not a point make. Criminals do not follow laws. That is why they are criminals. The fact that this has to be explained over and over again is very tiresome.

Tiresome? People like me and other people here do not live in fear. We have more other things to enjoy than you are trying to advocate. Fear.... Who are you to tell me that I should arm myself because of your fear? .... As I previously mentioned in my neighborhood we do not close or lock our gates since I was born. We leave our doors unlock.
If your decision to arm yourself I'm not stopping you. I could care less....

 

[Elvis Obama]

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

The study was requested by a sitting POTUS to further an agenda. If the CDC was serious about preventing deaths, they would be looking at our psychiatric/mental health status. THAT is the reason why people kill. It's not because of the tool they chose to carry out their murders. The tool is not the cause of the violence. It doesn't take a doctor or a CDC employee (who a lot are just BUREAUCRATS anyways), or a genius to know this.

I have to disagree here, the CDC shouldn't be dealing with psychiatric issues either.

Ah, the sage of medicine has stuck again! How about NIOSH? Is that a disease? It is under the CDC. The CDC is under the Department of Health and Human Services. They are all one. They will never consult with ignorant people on forum boards as to what their mission should or shouldn't be. They know what their mission is. They're doctors! You're not.

 

[Elvis Obama]

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

It is a political move and a political issue. Mass shootings are less than 0.1% of ALL deaths in the United States.

What is a political move? The CDC studying gun deaths? You just admitted that their preliminary study backs up some of your beliefs. Mass shootings have not been mentioned, and have nothing to do with this discussion. It's up to the CDC to determine where their efforts are best focused, not a bunch of know-it-alls on a forum board.

I believe that the CDC should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

Just because it turned out in favor of the people instead of the government does not mean it was NOT politically motivated. Of course it was! Come on! If you can't be honest about that fact, then I'm sorry, I have to consider you to be a dishonest individual with an agenda that goes against the rights of we the people of the United States of America.

Politically motivated? Of course it was politically motivated. Unfortunately you have no idea what that means. Elected representative are responsible to their constituents. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a problem. Elected representative are responsible for addressing problems like that. What you mean when you say "politically motivated" is a vast conspiracy to violate your rights. That is paranoia . The CDC report was unbiased. Period. It was not the "ammunition" that the most rabid anti-gun people wanted. If the CDC were in their pocket, they would have produced the conclusions those people wanted. They did not.

How in the world can you cite the CDC findings as proof of what you believe, then claim they are not being honest?

Are CDC employees elected?

Yes, they are elected, by elves. Anti-gun elves. They plan to break into your home, steal your guns, and leave warm, chewy chocolate chip cookies in their place. Yum!

 

[Rouge Rover]

It is a political move and a political issue. Mass shootings are less than 0.1% of ALL deaths in the United States.

What is a political move? The CDC studying gun deaths? You just admitted that their preliminary study backs up some of your beliefs. Mass shootings have not been mentioned, and have nothing to do with this discussion. It's up to the CDC to determine where their efforts are best focused, not a bunch of know-it-alls on a forum board.

I believe that the CDC should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

Just because it turned out in favor of the people instead of the government does not mean it was NOT politically motivated. Of course it was! Come on! If you can't be honest about that fact, then I'm sorry, I have to consider you to be a dishonest individual with an agenda that goes against the rights of we the people of the United States of America.

Politically motivated? Of course it was politically motivated. Unfortunately you have no idea what that means. Elected representative are responsible to their constituents. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a problem. Elected representative are responsible for addressing problems like that. What you mean when you say "politically motivated" is a vast conspiracy to violate your rights. That is paranoia . The CDC report was unbiased. Period. It was not the "ammunition" that the most rabid anti-gun people wanted. If the CDC were in their pocket, they would have produced the conclusions those people wanted. They did not.

How in the world can you cite the CDC findings as proof of what you believe, then claim they are not being honest?

Are CDC employees elected?

Yes, they are elected, by elves. Anti-gun elves. They plan to break into your home, steal your guns, and leave warm, chewy chocolate chip cookies in their place. Yum!

Weren't you just making fun of someone else earlier for not dealing with the substance of your blindingly awesome posts?

 

[ChrisL]

And the woman who was raped in the college parking lot, 50 ft. from the campus police station. She had to leave her gun at home that night because the campus was a gun free zone....except for the rapist....he brought his gun there....

Do you think she was dumb to want to carry her gun on campus that night?

And the rapist.....raped 3 other women after that woman, and murdered the 3rd...........so the gun free zone very likely contributed to several rapes and one murder....

I am very familiar with this case. You and I went over this before. You did not mentioned here that she was caught by surprised from behind to fit your agenda....... A rapist or thugs will NEVER make an announcement I'm going to rape you in 15 minutes..... I think you don't know that.....
Even if she carried her gun with her. Where do you think her gun was tucked or carry with her? In her vagina? Walking around with a gun in her hand? Have you seen anyone walking to parking lot with a gun in their hand? For you to make this kind of example to fit your propaganda is pathetic.
I also told you maybe this is the third time that I got rob by 2 thugs in Atlantic city casino parking lots.
If I had my gun with me in my waist. My chances of pulling my gun unlock the safety then fire..... is zero.... none...... no chance........ But 100% they could have killed me.

What's pathetic is you wanting to leave women unarmed and defenseless because you are afraid of guns. THAT is pathetic.

What in the world are you talking about woman?
Read my hips...... Where in the world I say women should stop protecting themselves? You are way off and pathetic and dumb.

Read your hips?

My point stands, you have no say in my decision. It's a personal decision that each person makes, as is their right to do so.

Bringing up criminals does not a point make. Criminals do not follow laws. That is why they are criminals. The fact that this has to be explained over and over again is very tiresome.

Tiresome? People like me and other people here do not live in fear. We have more other things to enjoy than you are trying to advocate. Fear.... Who are you to tell me that I should arm myself because of your fear? .... As I previously mentioned in my neighborhood we do not close or lock our gates since I was born. We leave our doors unlock.
If your decision to arm yourself I'm not stopping you. I could care less....

Who is telling you to arm yourself? Nobody is. Stop being a drama queen. AND it is "I could NOT care less."

 

[emilynghiem]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

ALL GUNS ARE WRONG IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY

Dear theliq
I would agree with you that the purpose and best use of arms
is for defense and deterrence, where ideally they don't have to be used at all.

I have met many police and peace officers who carry guns for dangerous situations that may require that,
but they don't depend on that, and do most of their deterrence and police work
by breaking up confrontations or preventing them completely CIVILLY.

You are right, for the most part the guns are not used but are there so they won't have to be!
That's the way it should be.

However, can you show a me a civilized society
that didn't still have criminally aggressive people who were effectively deterred by police carrying guns?

Because society and people aren't perfect, and there are still criminal people who
don't get help in advance, but are only discovered after they cause threats or problems to people,
then guns are still necessary in case of emergencies.

As we progress, and we can diagnose treat and cure the causes of criminal illness and behavior,
we can do more and more of the correctional work in advance and by civil means.

We won't have to rely so much on the point of confrontation with police,
or wait until after someone has stalked and killed people and is going to prison
BEFORE we get sick people help at the first sign of criminal abuse or dangerous addiction.

Until then, guns are still necessary, but in the right hands
of trained officers, they won't necessarily need to be used.

I completely agree with you Emily....Law Enforcement,The Military and some Proper Gun Clubs should have the ability to carry a Gun......but NO ONE else,steve but I can't see it happening in the US,so many folk think it's safer to carry a Gun.........Which is Totally Mental when you think about it,just sayin

Dear theliq

It seems BULLDOG also stated similar to what I believe about the same psychological evaluation and other training and requirements for officers applied to all such citizens.

Here you DO leave room for "some proper gun clubs' that I assume would take on equal responsibility for training and enforcing requirements.

So I think we would agree IF this was set up securely, similar to campus police or private security that is still locally hired and managed.

Where I might push you a bit more is on
"what is a safe ratio of population to armed security or police"
We don't want to have to have a police state to have enough security,
so it makes sense to have civilians trained to assist where it isn't ALL on the police to be there for everyone and every incident.

That's where I would argue it does require more citizens to share responsibility of law enforcement, similar to helping teachers in schools instead of expecting them to do all the work to discipline students and backlog dumped on them.

If the police unions and teachers unions work with their respective communities and districts, I think a SAFE system can be set up that both deters and diagnoses issues to prevent and correct causes of abuse or violations especially before they become criminal level threats.

 

[Rouge Rover]

Deter...diagnose...infringe.

 

[ChrisL]

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

It is a political move and a political issue. Mass shootings are less than 0.1% of ALL deaths in the United States.

What is a political move? The CDC studying gun deaths? You just admitted that their preliminary study backs up some of your beliefs. Mass shootings have not been mentioned, and have nothing to do with this discussion. It's up to the CDC to determine where their efforts are best focused, not a bunch of know-it-alls on a forum board.

I believe that the CDC should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

Just because it turned out in favor of the people instead of the government does not mean it was NOT politically motivated. Of course it was! Come on! If you can't be honest about that fact, then I'm sorry, I have to consider you to be a dishonest individual with an agenda that goes against the rights of we the people of the United States of America.

Politically motivated? Of course it was politically motivated. Unfortunately you have no idea what that means. Elected representative are responsible to their constituents. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a problem. Elected representative are responsible for addressing problems like that. What you mean when you say "politically motivated" is a vast conspiracy to violate your rights. That is paranoia . The CDC report was unbiased. Period. It was not the "ammunition" that the most rabid anti-gun people wanted. If the CDC were in their pocket, they would have produced the conclusions those people wanted. They did not.

How in the world can you cite the CDC findings as proof of what you believe, then claim they are not being honest?

Oh, so now you are back pedaling and admitting that it was politically motivated? Funny because earlier you scoffed at the idea. The CDC is not going to be unbiased of course. They get their funding through the federal government. They even lobby the government for grants. Did ya know that?