Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[2aguy]

I actually rarely carry. I have my CCW, and carry when I think I should....fear has nothing to do with it. I am not afraid of a car crash, but I wear a seat belt, I watch both ways before I cross the street and manage to do so without a hint of fear...... Fear really has nothing to do with carrying a gun. It is merely a tool in case a specific situation happens. When those situations do happen, and they do all across the country, rape, robbery and murder....someone who has a legal gun on their hip can handle it.......someone without is at the mercy of the criminal.

Having the option is great. I have had times where people knock on the door late at night, and knowing I have a weapon in case they are criminals is as reasuring as having a fire extingquisher in case the dryer starts on fire.

Americans use their legal guns at home and in public 1.1 million times a year....according to the Centers for Disease Control research. That means those people would have been victims...of rape, robbery or murder...but are alive, safe, and not scared for life...because they had a gun to stop the attack.

You....you would prefer that those women be raped, those people are brutally beaten and robbed....and they are murdered, and their families should lose them to a criminal..

That is your choice...I prefer the other choice..that the criminal is stopped.

Please provide the cdc study. Your lies are tiring, they never studied number of gun defenses.

Here, Troll...this is the CDC....the Department of Justice found 1.5 million defensive gun uses a year.....

What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses? by Gary Kleck :: SSRN



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

=========



Reason article on the revised paper..



A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use



-------



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

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



SSRN Electronic Library

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

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



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

Those polls, Kleck writes,

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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



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

Gary Klerk does not do studies for the cdc. And he has a history of messing up the numbers. You are blatantly lying again.

Moron, he found and published the research.......he doesn't have a history of messing up numbers, he is attacked because he actually did research into gun self defense....the CDC attempt was to refute him....and they came up with 1.1 million, the Department of Justice also did their own research to refute him, and came up with 1.5 million times a year......those are 3 studies our of 17 on gun self defense...and none of them support your theory.

He is not the cdc you lying scum.

Follow the link, get his paper, get the link to the CDC research.......you moron.

 

[OldLady]

Awwww...you're thinking of me......

So, is it true you're so scared you carry a sidearm while grocery shopping?

I actually rarely carry. I have my CCW, and carry when I think I should....fear has nothing to do with it. I am not afraid of a car crash, but I wear a seat belt, I watch both ways before I cross the street and manage to do so without a hint of fear...... Fear really has nothing to do with carrying a gun. It is merely a tool in case a specific situation happens. When those situations do happen, and they do all across the country, rape, robbery and murder....someone who has a legal gun on their hip can handle it.......someone without is at the mercy of the criminal.

Having the option is great. I have had times where people knock on the door late at night, and knowing I have a weapon in case they are criminals is as reasuring as having a fire extingquisher in case the dryer starts on fire.

Americans use their legal guns at home and in public 1.1 million times a year....according to the Centers for Disease Control research. That means those people would have been victims...of rape, robbery or murder...but are alive, safe, and not scared for life...because they had a gun to stop the attack.

You....you would prefer that those women be raped, those people are brutally beaten and robbed....and they are murdered, and their families should lose them to a criminal..

That is your choice...I prefer the other choice..that the criminal is stopped.

great. so i can understand and be sure - are you saying the stance of the left is NOT coming after guns?

i don't like labels also, but when a trait is far too common to one side, it can and will get referenced. if you need specific examples of the left being full of shit, holler. i can find CNN with animated gifs showing rocket launchers on AR15's and gyrating like giant dildo. i can show you the left in colorado who is after banning high capacity mags and think they are "single use". i can show you people on "the left" who say we're not coming after guns and then their making statements that they are.

while i agree generalities can be and are used in debates far too often, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong to do or use.

or would you disagree? if so, then fine. i'll just watch out for any stereotypes from you and react accordingly.

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

A disgruntled employee just killed two people in a Walmart in Mississippi. What happened to the days of going on FaceBook and saying filthy things about your ex-supervisor who just fired you? Now they have to take a gun and kill people?

24/7 news cycle and glorification of the killers...

Not so sure about that. I really doubt if this guy wanted fame as much as payback, for whatever slight he had gotten at work. Now see, the way I look at this is, if the guy did not have a gun or did not know someone who would gladly let him borrow theirs, he would not have taken lives today. He would not have marched into that Walmart and stabbed those people or hit them with a brick or anything else. He might have put sugar in their gas tanks or started an ugly rumor about their sisters, but that would have been about it.
It is the easy, 24/7 access to guns that allows this to happen over and over and over. Does an incident like this inspire some other assholes? Sure, sometimes, but not for fame. Just as a great idea.

 

[Polishprince]

but this is also why you're not likely to get that debate or discussion from gun owners. they've met far too many who won't listen to the mechanics behind their fears and simply expand their fears instead.

when you can think of a good way to rationalize with someone who is willing to keep their views alive despite learning to the contrary, let me know and i'll help get this discussion going.

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

You claim as many defenses as we have violent crimes. That is funny. 100% are defended? Too funny.

America has a lot of violent crimes which are never reported, Brain. If some thug comes up to my mum with a knife and she pulls out her handgun, the thug will probably leave in a hurry and not leave a calling card. The crime will never be reported and that will be that.

 

[2aguy]

Awwww...you're thinking of me......

So, is it true you're so scared you carry a sidearm while grocery shopping?

I actually rarely carry. I have my CCW, and carry when I think I should....fear has nothing to do with it. I am not afraid of a car crash, but I wear a seat belt, I watch both ways before I cross the street and manage to do so without a hint of fear...... Fear really has nothing to do with carrying a gun. It is merely a tool in case a specific situation happens. When those situations do happen, and they do all across the country, rape, robbery and murder....someone who has a legal gun on their hip can handle it.......someone without is at the mercy of the criminal.

Having the option is great. I have had times where people knock on the door late at night, and knowing I have a weapon in case they are criminals is as reasuring as having a fire extingquisher in case the dryer starts on fire.

Americans use their legal guns at home and in public 1.1 million times a year....according to the Centers for Disease Control research. That means those people would have been victims...of rape, robbery or murder...but are alive, safe, and not scared for life...because they had a gun to stop the attack.

You....you would prefer that those women be raped, those people are brutally beaten and robbed....and they are murdered, and their families should lose them to a criminal..

That is your choice...I prefer the other choice..that the criminal is stopped.

The guy who just killed two people at Walmart this morning in Mississippi becaus

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

A disgruntled employee just killed two people in a Walmart in Mississippi. What happened to the days of going on FaceBook and saying filthy things about your ex-supervisor who just fired you? Now they have to take a gun and kill people?

24/7 news cycle and glorification of the killers...

Not so sure about that. I really doubt if this guy wanted fame as much as payback, for whatever slight he had gotten at work. Now see, the way I look at this is, if the guy did not have a gun or did not know someone who would gladly let him borrow theirs, he would not have taken lives today. He would not have marched into that Walmart and stabbed those people or hit them with a brick or anything else. He might have put sugar in their gas tanks or started an ugly rumor about their sisters, but that would have been about it.
It is the easy, 24/7 access to guns that allows this to happen over and over and over. Does an incident like this inspire some other assholes? Sure, sometimes, but not for fame. Just as a great idea.

The majority of killers in prison come from single parent homes without fathers......look up the guys involved and you will likely see that issue.....

Single parent teenage mothers, raising young males without fathers is driving our violent crime...and the violent crime in Europe.....fix that, and the violence rates will go down.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

And the opinion of many, many others..in fact..probably a majority of Americans believe that the Constitution is a 'living document". I know you find that view abhorrent..but..as you say..that's your OPINION.

----------------------------------- Not me . There seem to be enough like me to keep thing halfway going my way for my lifetime at least . Lots of fights , money spent but things are ok for my generation I think . Depending on your age its YOU and younger Americans that are fecked as things change 'EEFleegle

Hmm..I'm sure you know that we have had a Supreme Court sitting that believed in the living document point of view..in our lifetimes..I refer you to the Warren Court--and his successor Warren Burger ---it is only in the last 20 years that the constructionists have regained the upper hand. The Living Document point of view was taught as gospel in most schools..in the 60's and 70's.
The wheel turns....

-------------------------------------------- As I said , I think that my generation is cool and good for my generation . Its you younger guys and kids that should be concerned about a whole lot of things as 'the wheel turns' . Course , many of youse guys are DOPERS and unsuitable for Adult Freedom and Responsibility anyway EEFl.

At the age of 65..it's good to be called a younger guy! Of course..i might well be..in comparison..***smiles***

 

[2aguy]

Awwww...you're thinking of me......

So, is it true you're so scared you carry a sidearm while grocery shopping?

I actually rarely carry. I have my CCW, and carry when I think I should....fear has nothing to do with it. I am not afraid of a car crash, but I wear a seat belt, I watch both ways before I cross the street and manage to do so without a hint of fear...... Fear really has nothing to do with carrying a gun. It is merely a tool in case a specific situation happens. When those situations do happen, and they do all across the country, rape, robbery and murder....someone who has a legal gun on their hip can handle it.......someone without is at the mercy of the criminal.

Having the option is great. I have had times where people knock on the door late at night, and knowing I have a weapon in case they are criminals is as reasuring as having a fire extingquisher in case the dryer starts on fire.

Americans use their legal guns at home and in public 1.1 million times a year....according to the Centers for Disease Control research. That means those people would have been victims...of rape, robbery or murder...but are alive, safe, and not scared for life...because they had a gun to stop the attack.

You....you would prefer that those women be raped, those people are brutally beaten and robbed....and they are murdered, and their families should lose them to a criminal..

That is your choice...I prefer the other choice..that the criminal is stopped.

The guy who just killed two people at Walmart this morning in Mississippi becaus

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

A disgruntled employee just killed two people in a Walmart in Mississippi. What happened to the days of going on FaceBook and saying filthy things about your ex-supervisor who just fired you? Now they have to take a gun and kill people?

24/7 news cycle and glorification of the killers...

Not so sure about that. I really doubt if this guy wanted fame as much as payback, for whatever slight he had gotten at work. Now see, the way I look at this is, if the guy did not have a gun or did not know someone who would gladly let him borrow theirs, he would not have taken lives today. He would not have marched into that Walmart and stabbed those people or hit them with a brick or anything else. He might have put sugar in their gas tanks or started an ugly rumor about their sisters, but that would have been about it.
It is the easy, 24/7 access to guns that allows this to happen over and over and over. Does an incident like this inspire some other assholes? Sure, sometimes, but not for fame. Just as a great idea.

And 1.1 million times a year normal people use their legal guns to save lives...more than guys like this.........lives saved.....

 

[pismoe]

California has banned guns, right?

No, they haven't.

------------------------------------- not BANNED them but lots of restrictions and regulations and laws that are all unsuitable and dreamed up by enemy politicians . Sorta like 'new zealand' XYZ.

 

[xyz]

California has banned guns, right?

No, they haven't.

------------------------------------- not BANNED them but lots of restrictions and regulations and laws that are all unsuitable and dreamed up by enemy politicians . Sorta like 'new zealand' CNM .

I'm sure it's easier to get a gun in California than New Zealand.

 

[pismoe]

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

And the opinion of many, many others..in fact..probably a majority of Americans believe that the Constitution is a 'living document". I know you find that view abhorrent..but..as you say..that's your OPINION.

----------------------------------- Not me . There seem to be enough like me to keep thing halfway going my way for my lifetime at least . Lots of fights , money spent but things are ok for my generation I think . Depending on your age its YOU and younger Americans that are fecked as things change 'EEFleegle

Hmm..I'm sure you know that we have had a Supreme Court sitting that believed in the living document point of view..in our lifetimes..I refer you to the Warren Court--and his successor Warren Burger ---it is only in the last 20 years that the constructionists have regained the upper hand. The Living Document point of view was taught as gospel in most schools..in the 60's and 70's.
The wheel turns....

-------------------------------------------- As I said , I think that my generation is cool and good for my generation . Its you younger guys and kids that should be concerned about a whole lot of things as 'the wheel turns' . Course , many of youse guys are DOPERS and unsuitable for Adult Freedom and Responsibility anyway EEFl.

At the age of 65..it's good to be called a younger guy! Of course..i might well be..in comparison..***smiles***

---------------------------------------------- Well , maybe not YOU but you are sure fecking up the next generations America EEFl .

 

[2aguy]

California has banned guns, right?

No, they haven't.

------------------------------------- not BANNED them but lots of restrictions and regulations and laws that are all unsuitable and dreamed up by enemy politicians . Sorta like 'new zealand' CNM .

I'm sure it's easier to get a gun in California than New Zealand.

New Zealand has more guns than Australia and a lower gun murder rate than Australia......culture, not guns.....the real issue, not the "I hate guns" issue.

 

[NotYourBody]

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

You claim as many defenses as we have violent crimes. That is funny. 100% are defended? Too funny.

America has a lot of violent crimes which are never reported, Brain. If some thug comes up to my mum with a knife and she pulls out her handgun, the thug will probably leave in a hurry and not leave a calling card. The crime will never be reported and that will be that.

The thug will wait for her to dig it out of her purse?

 

[iceberg]

Well when do you ever have a conversation with “The Left” that is an arbitrary label that is used as a strawman in political debates. I dont like labels but we are unfortunately defined by them all the time. I’m not a dem or a rep. I actually agree with more republican policies than dems, but I’m a leftard as far as this board is concerned... so whatever

great. so i can understand and be sure - are you saying the stance of the left is NOT coming after guns?

i don't like labels also, but when a trait is far too common to one side, it can and will get referenced. if you need specific examples of the left being full of shit, holler. i can find CNN with animated gifs showing rocket launchers on AR15's and gyrating like giant dildo. i can show you the left in colorado who is after banning high capacity mags and think they are "single use". i can show you people on "the left" who say we're not coming after guns and then their making statements that they are.

while i agree generalities can be and are used in debates far too often, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong to do or use.

or would you disagree? if so, then fine. i'll just watch out for any stereotypes from you and react accordingly.

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

A disgruntled employee just killed two people in a Walmart in Mississippi. What happened to the days of going on FaceBook and saying filthy things about your ex-supervisor who just fired you? Now they have to take a gun and kill people?

when in ireland last week i heard about a dude who took a knife and went on a rampage.

Knife crime deaths at highest level since WW2

lots of other links on it. violence is the issue. not the method they choose to express it. find out why people are violent and work on that, we may get somewhere. keep banning shit, they'll just use something else til we wind up making it illegal to kill people with rocks. well that's already illegal.

 

[pismoe]

California has banned guns, right?

No, they haven't.

------------------------------------- not BANNED them but lots of restrictions and regulations and laws that are all unsuitable and dreamed up by enemy politicians . Sorta like 'new zealand' CNM .

I'm sure it's easier to get a gun in California than New Zealand.

------------------------------------ MAYBE , I hope so but all the laws are unsuitable XYZ .

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

OK for all of the anti gun nut lefttards out there, answer this question. A good portion of households in Switzerland have an evil military assault rifle stashed in a closet so where are the waves of gun violence and mass shootings? If it's the guns as you say then the problem should exist there but if it's people and not guns it's long past time for you to shut your stupid yaps because you don't have brains enough to be preaching to anyone about anything. In fact you should stay away from the voting booth altogether too.

Culture is totally different..and the small population in comparison to ours makes the argument invalid..IMO. BTW..I don't think it's guns either...as I've said before it's culture and how we view violence. We will not legislate gun violence away. We can make it a bit harder..if we choose.

Thanks for proveing my point dumbass. It's the people and NOT the guns.
Guess what it didn't use to be a problem here either but that was back when we locked all the nut cases up in insane asylums instead of turning them loose on the streets and calling them democrats.

Stupid POS..it's not 'your' point..and I've been saying the same in this forum for a long time now. But I guess you're just too ignorant to have read the myriads of posts that say exactly that..our culture is one of violence..and guns are just one way we express that fact. Gun control will not solve this issue..neither will owning 100+ guns.

You knee-jerk partisan hacks stink up the joint with your unthinking parroting of pundits and your lack of any original thought.

As for your ignorant point about the mentally ill...guess who let them all out of the asylums..in the name of budget balancing...if you are the best the Right can do...they're hurting for certain!

 

[NotYourBody]

California has banned guns, right?

No, they haven't.

------------------------------------- not BANNED them but lots of restrictions and regulations and laws that are all unsuitable and dreamed up by enemy politicians . Sorta like 'new zealand' CNM .

I'm sure it's easier to get a gun in California than New Zealand.

New Zealand has more guns than Australia and a lower gun murder rate than Australia......culture, not guns.....the real issue, not the "I hate guns" issue.

It will be interesting to watch New Zealand. They are enacting some strict gun laws since the Christchurch shooting.

New Zealand's Plan To Buy Back Illegal Firearms Angers Gun Advocates

They aren't playing around with this mass shooting nonsense.

 

[Polishprince]

great. so i can understand and be sure - are you saying the stance of the left is NOT coming after guns?

i don't like labels also, but when a trait is far too common to one side, it can and will get referenced. if you need specific examples of the left being full of shit, holler. i can find CNN with animated gifs showing rocket launchers on AR15's and gyrating like giant dildo. i can show you the left in colorado who is after banning high capacity mags and think they are "single use". i can show you people on "the left" who say we're not coming after guns and then their making statements that they are.

while i agree generalities can be and are used in debates far too often, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong to do or use.

or would you disagree? if so, then fine. i'll just watch out for any stereotypes from you and react accordingly.

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

A disgruntled employee just killed two people in a Walmart in Mississippi. What happened to the days of going on FaceBook and saying filthy things about your ex-supervisor who just fired you? Now they have to take a gun and kill people?

when in ireland last week i heard about a dude who took a knife and went on a rampage.

Knife crime deaths at highest level since WW2

lots of other links on it. violence is the issue. not the method they choose to express it. find out why people are violent and work on that, we may get somewhere. keep banning shit, they'll just use something else til we wind up making it illegal to kill people with rocks. well that's already illegal.

Lots of weapons are dangerous, here is a video of a man killing 3 trained, armed assassins with a pencil.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

but this is also why you're not likely to get that debate or discussion from gun owners. they've met far too many who won't listen to the mechanics behind their fears and simply expand their fears instead.

when you can think of a good way to rationalize with someone who is willing to keep their views alive despite learning to the contrary, let me know and i'll help get this discussion going.

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

7,000 people each year die of melanoma, should America seek to destroy the sun?

Nope..but one should wear sunscreen..avoid going out too long...wear long sleeves--in short, take precautions, right?
Both owning and carrying a gun..and controlling access to weapons..are precautions. One can have both...in fact, we do.

 

[pismoe]

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

You claim as many defenses as we have violent crimes. That is funny. 100% are defended? Too funny.

America has a lot of violent crimes which are never reported, Brain. If some thug comes up to my mum with a knife and she pulls out her handgun, the thug will probably leave in a hurry and not leave a calling card. The crime will never be reported and that will be that.

The thug will wait for her to dig it out of her purse?

-------------------------- nowadays many women takes their gun ownership , gun use and defense seriously and there are many new fangled ways for woman to carry their guns so they can be gotten to very quickly 'NYBod .

 

[OldLady]

but this is also why you're not likely to get that debate or discussion from gun owners. they've met far too many who won't listen to the mechanics behind their fears and simply expand their fears instead.

when you can think of a good way to rationalize with someone who is willing to keep their views alive despite learning to the contrary, let me know and i'll help get this discussion going.

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

7,000 people each year die of melanoma, should America seek to destroy the sun?

No, but you don't see people "protecting" themselves from melanoma by spending MORE time in the sun. What we need is more good guys with guns? No gun free zones?

 

[2aguy]

California has banned guns, right?

No, they haven't.

------------------------------------- not BANNED them but lots of restrictions and regulations and laws that are all unsuitable and dreamed up by enemy politicians . Sorta like 'new zealand' CNM .

I'm sure it's easier to get a gun in California than New Zealand.

New Zealand has more guns than Australia and a lower gun murder rate than Australia......culture, not guns.....the real issue, not the "I hate guns" issue.

It will be interesting to watch New Zealand. They are enacting some strict gun laws since the Christchurch shooting.

New Zealand's Plan To Buy Back Illegal Firearms Angers Gun Advocates

They aren't playing around with this mass shooting nonsense.

They already did it in Australia and it failed...

Four dead, 1 hurt in Darwin mass shooting - 9News

An alleged gunman who went on a rampage killing four men and injuring a woman while looking for a man named "Alex" on Tuesday night was released from jail only a month ago.
Darwin man Ben Hoffmann, 45, received a 14-day sentence for breaching his curfew after he had been paroled in January after serving four years in prison for bashing a man with a baseball bat.

Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work | National Review

University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.”

“Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”

A 2007 report, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran similarly concluded that the buyback program did not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rate.

The Australian gun-homicide rate had already been quite low and had been steadily falling in the 15 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre. And while the mandatory buyback program did appear to reduce the rate of accidental firearm deaths, Baker and McPhedran found that “the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.”

=======

2007 report..

http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Baker and McPhedran 2007.pdf

Conclusions Examination of the long-term trends indicated that the only category of sudden death that may have been influenced by the introduction of the NFA was firearm suicide
------

However, this effect must be considered in light of the findings for suicide (non-firearm). Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia. The introduction of the NFA appeared to have a negative effect on accidental firearm death. However, over the time period investigated, there was a relatively small number of accidental deaths per annum, with substantial variability. Any conclusions regarding the effect of the NFA on accidental firearm death should be approached with caution
=========

2008 report...


http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee and Suardi 2008.pdf

In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
-------

6. Conclusion

This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.