Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[ChrisL]

There are some stats in your link that bring the levels of violent forcible rape to over 100,000. Again, lies.

How do you figure that 200,000 women defending themselves with weapons attracts rapists. That is a bogus claim.

Explain how having a gun would make a woman MORE likely to be attacked?

I'm clearly claiming it doesn't. But it would have to in order to believe the 200k. This is why 200k is obviously wrong.

No, it isn't wrong, and you have posted nothing to prove that it is.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf

In 2010, strangers committed about 38% of nonfatal violent crimes, including rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. „ There was no statistical difference between the percentage decline for violence by strangers (81%) and by offenders known to the victims (73%) from 1993 to 2010. „ In 2005-10, more than half (52%) of all robberies were committed by strangers, down from nearly two-thirds (64%) in 1993-98. „ In 2005-10, strangers committed 62% of violent victimizations occurring in public places. „ In 2005-10, about 9% of violent victimizations that occurred in victims’ homes were committed by strangers. „ In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim. „ In 2005-10, about 22% of victims of violence committed by strangers were injured, compared to 31% of victims who knew the offender. „ In 2010, more than half (55%) of violent victimizations by strangers were reported to police, although the percentage fluctuated from 1993 to 2010. „ From 2005 to 2008, about 43% of homicides known to have been committed by a stranger occurred during a robbery or argument.

Sorry but math shows it to be ridiculous. 25% of women can't defend 200k when 75% are victims of 80k.

The 200,000 women would NOT be included in the raped category because they were NOT raped. They defended against rape with the use of a firearm.

Why would armed women who represent 25% of population defend 200k, while unarmed women who are defenseless as you say and 75% of population fall victim to only 80k? If they are assaulted at the same rate the unarmed must be defending 500k. Not so defenseless I guess.

What in the hell are you talking about? The 200,000 women WERE NOT ASSAULTED. They used their weapons to prevent assault. Dumbass.

 

[ChrisL]

Somebody, shoot this guy.

 

[Brain357]

I'm clearly claiming it doesn't. But it would have to in order to believe the 200k. This is why 200k is obviously wrong.

No, it isn't wrong, and you have posted nothing to prove that it is.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf

In 2010, strangers committed about 38% of nonfatal violent crimes, including rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. „ There was no statistical difference between the percentage decline for violence by strangers (81%) and by offenders known to the victims (73%) from 1993 to 2010. „ In 2005-10, more than half (52%) of all robberies were committed by strangers, down from nearly two-thirds (64%) in 1993-98. „ In 2005-10, strangers committed 62% of violent victimizations occurring in public places. „ In 2005-10, about 9% of violent victimizations that occurred in victims’ homes were committed by strangers. „ In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim. „ In 2005-10, about 22% of victims of violence committed by strangers were injured, compared to 31% of victims who knew the offender. „ In 2010, more than half (55%) of violent victimizations by strangers were reported to police, although the percentage fluctuated from 1993 to 2010. „ From 2005 to 2008, about 43% of homicides known to have been committed by a stranger occurred during a robbery or argument.

Sorry but math shows it to be ridiculous. 25% of women can't defend 200k when 75% are victims of 80k.

The 200,000 women would NOT be included in the raped category because they were NOT raped. They defended against rape with the use of a firearm.

Why would armed women who represent 25% of population defend 200k, while unarmed women who are defenseless as you say and 75% of population fall victim to only 80k? If they are assaulted at the same rate the unarmed must be defending 500k. Not so defenseless I guess.

What in the hell are you talking about? The 200,000 women WERE NOT ASSAULTED. They used their weapons to prevent assault. Dumbass.

So they prevented an assault that didn't happen? Well yes the 200k is not an accurate number for obvious reasons.

 

[westwall]

This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......

Here s Why Gun Grabbers Are So Nasty - The Truth About Guns

We’ve noted for a while now how nasty the forces of civilian disarmament have become in recent years. Since their failure to significantly move the anti-gun needle after Newtown — an opportunity they saw as a sure thing for rolling back Second Amendment rights — the gun-grabbing community seems to have ratcheted up (or down, really) the venom and vulgarity. One of our readers, Ozallos, posited the following theory under our post, ‘Why Are Anti-Gunners So Vile? – ConcealedNation.org Reads Their Hate Mail’ . . .

Ok, here’s the deal. You own a gun. They don’t. Or by their very ethos can’t. You have taken the responsibility of security upon yourself and are secure in that fact. Again, they aren’t. You’re a threat to the philosophy they believe in and there are very few ways they have in order to express that frustration. First, they must have somebody else take your guns. Empowering somebody else with guns to take your guns is hypocritical at its very core, but seen as a necessary evil . . .

The ends justify the means and if a few eggs need to be broken, /shrug. You need to burn the village idiot to save him or something.

Angry people aren't thinking clearly. If they were, they'd no more blame firearms for violence than they do cars for drunk driving accidents.

It is a little more complicated than that....don't ya THINK?

Ummm. Nope. Not really.

 

[2aguy]

Somebody, shoot this guy.

Not worth the prison time....and losing a concealed carry permit.......



Oh...and it would be wrong......or something.....

 

[Vandalshandle]

Second Amendment jurisprudence is currently evolving, and indeed that process has just started.

It could be decades before a comprehensive understanding of the Second Amendment right is codified in case law, likely requiring the Supreme Court to weight in with regard to a number of regulatory measures.

Until that time, however, firearm regulatory policy that has been ruled Constitutional by the Federal courts, such as magazine capacity requirements and licensing fees, as well as measures not yet subject to judicial review, do not 'violate' the Second Amendment, nor do they seek to 'infringe' on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

To argue otherwise is ignorant and unfounded.

And what good do regulations and laws do against criminals who most of the time obtain their guns through illegal means?

Well, not to put to fine a point on it, ChrisL, but how can a person get firearms through illegal means unless there are laws against them getting guns?

 

[Bfgrn]

Angry anti gun nut is YOU. You want to leave women defenseless against rapists who may even murder them, and even go so far as to say that women can fight off a rapist and that men are NOT stronger than women. You are a piece of shit.

This is part of the problem gun grabbers are facing. Women are the number one driving force behind gun control...conversely, the number one fastest growing segment of gun owners are women.

LAS VEGAS — The gun world is not just a man’s world anymore.

Women are buying more guns, hunting and participating in the shooting sports more than ever, according to a study released Wednesday by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

“We’re changing the industry,” said Lucretia Free, publisher of The American Woman Shooter.

In 2001, there were 1.8 million female hunters in the country. In 2013, there were 3.3 million female hunters, an 85 percent increase in the dozen years, according to the study released last week at the shooting sports organization’s annual SHOT (Shooting, Hunting and Outdoors Trade) Show in Las Vegas.

In 2001, there were 3.3 million female target shooters in the country. In 2013, that number had grown to 5.4 million, or increased by 60 percent.

And those numbers don’t include the number of women who own a gun only for protection, which is why most women initially buy a gun.

Study More Women Buying Guns Participating In Shooting Sports Times Record
​

What is driving this growth? At least in part the success of the conceal carry movement.

The gun control groups staked their reputations on a lie...that conceal carry would lead to a new "Wild West" where law abiding citizens would be filling the streets with lead! Oh my!

Not only did that narrative prove false, but just the opposite occurred, crime dropped, and responsible citizens (gasp) carried concealed weapons responsibly.

Today, women are asking "why am I not doing that? I am responsible. Why am I leaving myself at a disadvantage?"

And in response, they are not.

My wife owns here own guns, with far different designated purposes than my own. Where my guns are almost exclusively of the hunting variety, hers are exclusively for the purpose of self defense.

She and her girlfriends have a girls range day once a week. At first there were four...now there are ten.

I keep trying to steal away her Maverick 8-shot Model 88 Security 12 gauge, but so far I have not been successful.

Herein lies your problem. NO ONE has proposed banning all guns. Not Obama, not Schumer, not Bloomberg, not Feinstein.

Reasonable guns laws are NOT unreasonable, unless you are an absolutist or extremist.

Diane Feinstein does:

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993.

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995.

“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”



Joe Biden does:

“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993



Sarah Brady does:

“…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” – Hearst Newspapers, October 1997

“The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” – 1 July, 1988

“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” – The National Educator, January 1994, pg. 3, to Fmr. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

I always thought you were smarter than that WinterBorn...I was wrong...

False and out of context "quotes" aside...PLEASE provide the bills and legislation PROPOSED...

It is a funny thing, these things we call "laws"...they require more than "quotes"

Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

And, of course, we have to use right-wing sources because the liberal media likes to downplay the incremental gun banning of our politicians . . . .

Alert Sen. Diane Feinstein releases gun ban summary for 2013 The Daily Caller

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
  • 120 specifically-named firearms
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
• Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
  • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
  • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
  • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
• Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
  • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
  • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
  • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
  • Background check of owner and any transferee;
  • Type and serial number of the firearm;
  • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
  • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
  • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.



Tags: Gun control, handguns

I fully support that bill. It is reasonable and it's sloe purpose is to protect We, the People.

You can stuff the 'slippery slope' crap...

 

[toxicmedia]

This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......

Here s Why Gun Grabbers Are So Nasty - The Truth About Guns

We’ve noted for a while now how nasty the forces of civilian disarmament have become in recent years. Since their failure to significantly move the anti-gun needle after Newtown — an opportunity they saw as a sure thing for rolling back Second Amendment rights — the gun-grabbing community seems to have ratcheted up (or down, really) the venom and vulgarity. One of our readers, Ozallos, posited the following theory under our post, ‘Why Are Anti-Gunners So Vile? – ConcealedNation.org Reads Their Hate Mail’ . . .

Ok, here’s the deal. You own a gun. They don’t. Or by their very ethos can’t. You have taken the responsibility of security upon yourself and are secure in that fact. Again, they aren’t. You’re a threat to the philosophy they believe in and there are very few ways they have in order to express that frustration. First, they must have somebody else take your guns. Empowering somebody else with guns to take your guns is hypocritical at its very core, but seen as a necessary evil . . .

The ends justify the means and if a few eggs need to be broken, /shrug. You need to burn the village idiot to save him or something.

You people have lost yo' damn minds.

Liberals are the racists.

Gun control people are the angry ones

Atheism is a "faith"

what next?

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.

 

[2aguy]

Second Amendment jurisprudence is currently evolving, and indeed that process has just started.

It could be decades before a comprehensive understanding of the Second Amendment right is codified in case law, likely requiring the Supreme Court to weight in with regard to a number of regulatory measures.

Until that time, however, firearm regulatory policy that has been ruled Constitutional by the Federal courts, such as magazine capacity requirements and licensing fees, as well as measures not yet subject to judicial review, do not 'violate' the Second Amendment, nor do they seek to 'infringe' on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

To argue otherwise is ignorant and unfounded.

And what good do regulations and laws do against criminals who most of the time obtain their guns through illegal means?

Well, not to put to fine a point on it, ChrisL, but how can a person get firearms through illegal means unless there are laws against them getting guns?

Because unlike your portrayel, gun owners support actual common sense gun laws....not the "common sense" gun laws that deny law abiding citizens access to guns....we support gun laws that allow criminals who use guns for criminal purposes to be locked up........you guys focus only on law abiding citizens since those are the only people background checks and magazine limits and gun registration effect.......

It is against the law for a felon to own or carry a gun....when you catch them with a gun.....lock them up for a long time...

that is real gun control.....what you guys want is Tom Cruise "pre-crime" where you prevent a crime before it happens.....but that only works in that movie....

 

[2aguy]

"Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.

That is what you say...so your gun on your hip is now an illegal gun if you are in the same room as your child.....nice try...we know how you think and how your unintended consequences are not unintended at all....

How do you enforce that......searching a home....right? And it is already negligent homicide....just like when a parent leaves a cleaning product in reach of a child, or medicine, or matches, or a full bathtub.............all of those should be illegal as well right? With the same consequences...right?

 

[Bfgrn]

I'll challenge you. Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.

There SHOULD be an outright ban on assault weapons. There is NO NEED for a private citizen to have an assault weapon for personal protection...NONE!

Again...how exactly would that have averted Newtown?

Still waiting...

Wait all you want...Newtown is not the only reason for passing sensible and reasonable gun laws. America leads the world in gun violence.

There is no way to completely prevent a tragedy like Newtown. But it could have been 'less' tragic if Lanza didn't have an assault rifle with a rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute and ten 30 round magazines.

 

[2aguy]

I'll challenge you. Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.

There SHOULD be an outright ban on assault weapons. There is NO NEED for a private citizen to have an assault weapon for personal protection...NONE!

Again...how exactly would that have averted Newtown?

Still waiting...

Wait all you want...Newtown is not the only reason for passing sensible and reasonable gun laws. America leads the world in gun violence.

There is no way to completely prevent a tragedy like Newtown. But it could have been 'less' tragic if Lanza didn't have an assault rifle with a rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute and ten 30 round magazines.

Actually, that isn't true...we are well down on that list...I think we are #90 or 111......and lanza could have done the same thing with several revolvers....

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.

That is what you say...so your gun on your hip is now an illegal gun if you are in the same room as your child.....nice try...we know how you think and how your unintended consequences are not unintended at all....

How do you enforce that......searching a home....right? And it is already negligent homicide....just like when a parent leaves a cleaning product in reach of a child, or medicine, or matches, or a full bathtub.............all of those should be illegal as well right? With the same consequences...right?

...and this, gentlepersons, is how we separate the NUTS from the responsible gun owners!

And add to that the same poster's complaint that background checks take away the rights of responsible gun owners, and we have a 2 scoop sunday with nuts!

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

"
Why anti gun people are so angry.....""

And just for the record, I'm not angry. I just don't think most people are either mature or responsible enough to own one. The record number of deaths and accidental shootings in American bears that out.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I'll challenge you. Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.

There SHOULD be an outright ban on assault weapons. There is NO NEED for a private citizen to have an assault weapon for personal protection...NONE!

Again...how exactly would that have averted Newtown?

Still waiting...

Wait all you want...Newtown is not the only reason for passing sensible and reasonable gun laws. America leads the world in gun violence.

There is no way to completely prevent a tragedy like Newtown. But it could have been 'less' tragic if Lanza didn't have an assault rifle with a rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute and ten 30 round magazines.

But it's OK...Until it happens in THEIR little, tiny, myopic world where they play Keyboard Kowboys every day.

 

[bucs90]

I'll challenge you. Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.

There SHOULD be an outright ban on assault weapons. There is NO NEED for a private citizen to have an assault weapon for personal protection...NONE!

Again...how exactly would that have averted Newtown?

Still waiting...

Wait all you want...Newtown is not the only reason for passing sensible and reasonable gun laws. America leads the world in gun violence.

There is no way to completely prevent a tragedy like Newtown. But it could have been 'less' tragic if Lanza didn't have an assault rifle with a rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute and ten 30 round magazines.

But it's OK...Until it happens in THEIR little, tiny, myopic world where they play Keyboard Kowboys every day.

Those are interesting charts.

Can I ask...whats the racial compositions of each of those nations? Id guess the 3/100,000 gun deaths in America each year are largely black on black murders. The white population here is probably just as low as Norway and Sweden and all those other vastly whiter nations.

 

[Bfgrn]

I think that Winterborn is just pointing out the thinking of 'ilk' like fienstein and other politicians Bfgrn . Fienstien , boxer and other taxpayer paid public servants would restrict , disarm , regulate all they can when they can . I suspect that you and Brian are the same ilk !!

It amazes me just how controlled the right wing mind is by fear. It is the very core of conservatism. The slippery slope argument is ignorant. District of Columbia vs. Heller clearly states:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Are there 'some' people who want to ban all guns? Of course. But the vast majority of liberals support the right to bear arms to allow citizens to protect themselves, their family and their property. And for sport and hunting.

Common sense laws like universal background checks and a ban of assault weapons is reasonable and prudent to reasonable and prudent citizens...

Unfortunately reasonable and prudent is trumped by the right wing fear filled slippery slope mind.

 

[pismoe]

I think that the Supremes have ruled in some cases and then overturned those very same rulings at a later date 'BFGRM' . That's what many libs , dems , progressive and their ilk hope happens with HELLER . New court when justices die or retire , different arguments and poof , Heller is gone or reinterpreted . By the way , self defense in the home is a good thing but self defense , hunting , target shooting , gun collecting are not what the 2nd Amendment is primarily about !!

 

[pismoe]

anyone out there have a list or idea of how many Supreme court cases have been reversed at a later date for whatever reason . I and 'BFgrm' would like to know the answer to my question .