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

[Brain357]

Over 20 year old studies. Crime has come down over 30% since those were done. How do you account for that in your 1.6 number?

I didn't. Barak obama did...he commissioned the CDC to look at all the research to date, even stuff I don't have, and he did this in 2013 and spent 10 million dollars doing it.......and he came back with the numbers between 500,000 and 3 million, so my number is right in the middle of his, an anti gunner, research.......complain to him.....

And thanks for pointing out that while more Americans own and carry guns for protection...the crime rate has gone down, not up.....and the gun accident rate has gone down, not up.........

500 is 1/3 of your 1.6. and well if it is 3 million than that means there have been 90 million defenses the last 30 year? That's more than one for every gun owner in the country. Yet I have tons of gun owner friends and family who have never had one. Not believable.

Sorry....16 studies conducted by actual researchers say you are wrong.....that trumps what you feel........

Several of those surveys say it is only 800k. That would make you off by 100% too high. And those were over 20 years ago so subtract 30%. The 1.6 is way off. But what really trumps everything is the 230 criminals shot and killed in defense. No way people are pulling guns on criminals over a million times and only 230 get killed. Over 600 are killed each year just in accidental shootings.

Brain...feelings have no place in research...which is why so many anti-gun researchers lie in their methods.....

I think common sense has a place in research. If you do a survey and extrapolate the numbers and the total is impossible to be right you did something wrong. There haven't been 90 million defenses the last 30 years. It just takes common sense to figure that out. And there is no way a criminal is shot and killed one every 7,000 defenses. And if there were that many defenses I'd know somebody who had one. So sometimes you need to just use some common sense and realize it isn't right. Your surveys only talked to 3,000-5000 people. There is a lot of room for error when you try to extrapolate that for 300 million people.

 

[Brain357]

Again....we have been driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan by backward ass muslim terrorists using pickup trucks and AK-47s vs. our tanks, jets, drones and the best trained troops in the world........because they just didn't quit and the democrats here didn't want to fight....so tell me again how AR-15s in the hands of 5 million Americans, better trained, many U.S. vets, better educated, fighting in our own country........would lose to a military who won't be completely in the fight mentally or spiritually........

We weren't driven out, we ran them over. It was policing them we didn't want to do forever. Nor can we afford to do it.

We are deciding to leave, not being driven out. Nobody wants to pay to police them forever.

And do you think our government...in the face of 88 million gun owners wouldn't decide to not murder our citizens?

That's put in a very confusing way.

How about "do you think our government would decide to murder our citizens in the face of 88 miliion gun owners?"

First, the government wouldn't try to murder the citizens.

Second, if they did, they'd bomb them from the air, and it wouldn't matter what kind of home protection you have.

Sorry.....small, well led, well armed forces have forced larger better armed forces to give up......in particular us against muslim terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.......the dems didn't want to win, and pulled us out.....

We ran them over and then our military was forced to police. That's not what they should be doing. Nobody wants to pay for their security any longer.

 

[2aguy]

Well....Mexico....the government, in conjunction with the drug cartels routinely kills thousands of Mexican citizens each year.........it isn't even the entire government...many times local aspects of the federal and local government acting against unarmed citizens.....

Rwanda....government backed militias murdered 800,000 innocent people with machetes.....the government incited the violence then did nothing to stop it....

1940s Germany....a modern nation state....we know what happened....did the German people in the 1920s envision the death camps that were a mere 20 years away?

As I have in my signature....

---Reason for guns...criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, government inability to protect, government murder

 

[2aguy]

We weren't driven out, we ran them over. It was policing them we didn't want to do forever. Nor can we afford to do it.

We are deciding to leave, not being driven out. Nobody wants to pay to police them forever.

And do you think our government...in the face of 88 million gun owners wouldn't decide to not murder our citizens?

That's put in a very confusing way.

How about "do you think our government would decide to murder our citizens in the face of 88 miliion gun owners?"

First, the government wouldn't try to murder the citizens.

Second, if they did, they'd bomb them from the air, and it wouldn't matter what kind of home protection you have.

Sorry.....small, well led, well armed forces have forced larger better armed forces to give up......in particular us against muslim terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.......the dems didn't want to win, and pulled us out.....

We ran them over and then our military was forced to police. That's not what they should be doing. Nobody wants to pay for their security any longer.

yet we continue to pay for Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea......and they aren't even actively violent....

 

[pismoe]

one theory is that they wouldn't bomb because of the collateral damage on other USA citizens plus ruination of infrastructure 'TM' . I don't know what might happen , should be interesting and its one reason that I dislike enlisting illegal immigrant recruits into USA military with the promise of pay and citizenship !!

 

[toxicmedia]

We are deciding to leave, not being driven out. Nobody wants to pay to police them forever.

And do you think our government...in the face of 88 million gun owners wouldn't decide to not murder our citizens?

That's put in a very confusing way.

How about "do you think our government would decide to murder our citizens in the face of 88 miliion gun owners?"

First, the government wouldn't try to murder the citizens.

Second, if they did, they'd bomb them from the air, and it wouldn't matter what kind of home protection you have.

Sorry.....small, well led, well armed forces have forced larger better armed forces to give up......in particular us against muslim terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.......the dems didn't want to win, and pulled us out.....

We ran them over and then our military was forced to police. That's not what they should be doing. Nobody wants to pay for their security any longer.

yet we continue to pay for Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea......and they aren't even actively violent....

Never mind the fact that Germany and Japan are not under threat.

We should pull out ofe everywhere, except the middle east, and South Korea

 

[2aguy]

I didn't. Barak obama did...he commissioned the CDC to look at all the research to date, even stuff I don't have, and he did this in 2013 and spent 10 million dollars doing it.......and he came back with the numbers between 500,000 and 3 million, so my number is right in the middle of his, an anti gunner, research.......complain to him.....

And thanks for pointing out that while more Americans own and carry guns for protection...the crime rate has gone down, not up.....and the gun accident rate has gone down, not up.........

500 is 1/3 of your 1.6. and well if it is 3 million than that means there have been 90 million defenses the last 30 year? That's more than one for every gun owner in the country. Yet I have tons of gun owner friends and family who have never had one. Not believable.

Sorry....16 studies conducted by actual researchers say you are wrong.....that trumps what you feel........

Several of those surveys say it is only 800k. That would make you off by 100% too high. And those were over 20 years ago so subtract 30%. The 1.6 is way off. But what really trumps everything is the 230 criminals shot and killed in defense. No way people are pulling guns on criminals over a million times and only 230 get killed. Over 600 are killed each year just in accidental shootings.

Brain...feelings have no place in research...which is why so many anti-gun researchers lie in their methods.....

I think common sense has a place in research. If you do a survey and extrapolate the numbers and the total is impossible to be right you did something wrong. There haven't been 90 million defenses the last 30 years. It just takes common sense to figure that out. And there is no way a criminal is shot and killed one every 7,000 defenses. And if there were that many defenses I'd know somebody who had one. So sometimes you need to just use some common sense and realize it isn't right. Your surveys only talked to 3,000-5000 people. There is a lot of room for error when you try to extrapolate that for 300 million people.

Sorry....they predict national elections on smaller samples......and Kleck used over 4,990 respondents to come up with his numbers......again, 16 studies...actually more but that is all I have access to, over 40 years, the most recent in 2013 done by obama and his CDC, an anti gun president and anti gun organization, and they support the average of 1.6 million each year.....the lowest hard numbers for the studies...760,000....

Even with that number.....gun murders 8-9,000 a year vs. 760,000 times violent crime is stopped or prevented and lives saved.... you can do the math brain.......then compare it to the actual average of 1.6 million times a year.....

 

[toxicmedia]

one theory is that they wouldn't bomb because of the collateral damage on other USA citizens plus ruination of infrastructure 'TM' , I don't know what might happen , should be interesting and its one reason that I dislike enlisting illegal immigrant recruits into USA military with the promise of pay and citizenship !!

That's a pretty nutty theory.

I ahve a friend who thinks the end times are here, and that theory sounds like something he'd believe

 

[pismoe]

might be nutty , who knows , gov is getting weirder all the time 'tm' . Whoever thought that we'd be negotiating with iran and a a 'cic' like we have running the USA military .

 

[Brain357]

Well....Mexico....the government, in conjunction with the drug cartels routinely kills thousands of Mexican citizens each year.........it isn't even the entire government...many times local aspects of the federal and local government acting against unarmed citizens.....

Rwanda....government backed militias murdered 800,000 innocent people with machetes.....the government incited the violence then did nothing to stop it....

1940s Germany....a modern nation state....we know what happened....did the German people in the 1920s envision the death camps that were a mere 20 years away?

As I have in my signature....

---Reason for guns...criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, government inability to protect, government murder

When has the government in mexico ever killed citizens?

You are comparing us to Rwanda?

Germany they didn't even have TV's much less 24/7 news, cell phones and the internet.

Why are Danish citizens so safe? They have few guns.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I will simplify my argument for those that don't get it. There are common sense laws regarding gun possession and ownership, including, the responsibility to keep them out of the hands of unsupervised children. A couple of you are so addicted to "the right to own and carry guns" that you don't even think that THOSE laws are appropriate. I maintain that you are so far beyond the pale of "responsible gun owners" that you have crossed over into the NUT zone. It therefore follows to some of us, that there are plenty of gun nuts who consider ANY gun restriction, whether "common sense", or not, to be wrong, and who are therefor not even worth arguing with. I like to know who they are, so that I don't waste my time even attempting to find common ground with them.

Hell man, I agreed with you...we don't need new laws because there are ALREADY laws that cover that.

Welcome to your nut list. At least you're in good company.

You are NOT one of the couple of people who rejected even child safety laws. I was referring to two other posters.

 

[toxicmedia]

might be nutty , who knows , gov is getting weirder all the time 'tm' . Whoever thought that we'd be negotiating with iran and a a 'cic' like we have running the USA military .

I don't subscribe to the notion that the US is at any significant historical point, good or bad.

If anything, we're in such a rut that it's getting boring to be an American.

The post WWII euphoria wore off by 2009.

Our future involves mediocrity, not an apocolypse

 

[pismoe]

and some of both dems and repubs think its a good idea to enlist illegal immigrants into USA military and after serving and doing as ordered these mercenaries get citizenship 'TM' !! Doesn't sound far fetched to me as its a plan that has some advocates in USA government .

 

[Brain357]

500 is 1/3 of your 1.6. and well if it is 3 million than that means there have been 90 million defenses the last 30 year? That's more than one for every gun owner in the country. Yet I have tons of gun owner friends and family who have never had one. Not believable.

Sorry....16 studies conducted by actual researchers say you are wrong.....that trumps what you feel........

Several of those surveys say it is only 800k. That would make you off by 100% too high. And those were over 20 years ago so subtract 30%. The 1.6 is way off. But what really trumps everything is the 230 criminals shot and killed in defense. No way people are pulling guns on criminals over a million times and only 230 get killed. Over 600 are killed each year just in accidental shootings.

Brain...feelings have no place in research...which is why so many anti-gun researchers lie in their methods.....

I think common sense has a place in research. If you do a survey and extrapolate the numbers and the total is impossible to be right you did something wrong. There haven't been 90 million defenses the last 30 years. It just takes common sense to figure that out. And there is no way a criminal is shot and killed one every 7,000 defenses. And if there were that many defenses I'd know somebody who had one. So sometimes you need to just use some common sense and realize it isn't right. Your surveys only talked to 3,000-5000 people. There is a lot of room for error when you try to extrapolate that for 300 million people.

Sorry....they predict national elections on smaller samples......and Kleck used over 4,990 respondents to come up with his numbers......again, 16 studies...actually more but that is all I have access to, over 40 years, the most recent in 2013 done by obama and his CDC, an anti gun president and anti gun organization, and they support the average of 1.6 million each year.....the lowest hard numbers for the studies...760,000....

Even with that number.....gun murders 8-9,000 a year vs. 760,000 times violent crime is stopped or prevented and lives saved.... you can do the math brain.......then compare it to the actual average of 1.6 million times a year.....

In 2013 they did no new surveys. They just looked at old studies. 4,990 is not very many. Elections have two answers. Gun defenses are dependent on many. Was there a defense? When did it occur? Was it really a defense or just an intimidation by the defender...

 

[pismoe]

lots of bad change happening in the USA 'TM' !! Apocalypse ,aww , its just an ongoing discussion and you did reply !!

 

[turtledude]

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.

Have you seen some of the things said about me? I'd say the gun nutz are just as angry.

ridiculing your silly anti gun posts is hardly the sign of anger

 

[turtledude]

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?

No not really. Look at how many ugn owners there are vs how many incidents of gun violence. If guns correlated to incidents of gun violence we'd have far more incidents than we do.

Criminals account for gun violence, not law-abidding gun owners.

And look at the carnage an assault weapon can cause in mere seconds in a public place. And look at how easy it is for a criminal to walk into a security safe gun show, and buy any weapon he desires without a background check.

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

what causes this sort of idiocy?

 

[turtledude]

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

There is no such thing as 'anti-gun people,' consequently no one is 'angry.'

No one of consequence or merit seeks to 'ban' firearms, or compel their 'confiscation.' The vast majority of Americans from one side of the political spectrum to the other support the right of the individual to own a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense.

The problem, as usual, concerns the extremism on the right, where some conservatives attempt to contrive 'guns' into a 'political issue,' and exhibit their ignorance of the law by maintaining that the Second Amendment right is 'absolute' and not subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

The conflict, therefore, has nothing to do with anyone being 'anti-gun'; rather, the conflict is between those who correctly understand that there are necessary and proper restrictions that can be placed on weapons the Constitution deems 'dangerous and unusual,' and those who reject this fundamental principle. “[T]he Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[...]the [Second Amendment codifies the] historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” DC v. Heller (2008)

still pretending to understand constitutional law but you don't know what dicta is. at least 25% of the public wants to ban handguns

 

[Vandalshandle]

The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.

A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.

 

[turtledude]

Here is some actual research........where do actual convicts get their guns....

Fewer than 1 percent of state prison inmates obtained their guns at the time of offense from gun shows costs of regulations exceed benefits - Crime Prevention Research Center

What is interesting is the remarkable consistency of the rate that criminals obtained their guns from gun shows (a copy of the earlier report is available here).

One problem with using these surveys is that people think that if one were to actually stop all criminals from obtaining guns from gun shows or through some other way, that will actually stop the criminals from getting guns. Yet, even when there are complete bans on guns criminals are still able to obtain them. Given how much of violent crime is drug gang related and given how hard it is to stop drug gangs from getting illegal drugs to sell, it is just as difficult to stop these drug gangs from getting the guns that they need to protect their very valuable drugs. Thus, it isn’t too surprising that background checks on private transfers has beneficial no impact on crime rates (see here or here).

Gun show regulations do have a cost. Almost everyone all those stopped by background checks are false positives — a law-abiding citizen who shouldn’t have been stopped. Other delays extend beyond the length of the gun show — the delays can usually take up to three business days to clear and gun shows only last for two days over a weekend. So even if you buy a gun at the very beginning of a gun show (say Saturday morning), the federal government has until Tuesday morning before a seller is allowed to complete the sale, but by that time the people who have traveled all the way to the show are long gone. For 2002 to 2006, 92 percent of checks were completed during the initial call by the dealer. About 3 percent of background checks take up to two hours to complete. Another 2 percent take up to 3 business days and 3 percent take 3 full business days. Even a two hour delay can mean the difference between whether the a sales occurs. After all, the next stage of the background check won’t begin until the first business day, which will be after the gun show has packed up and left. That implies that if you try waiting in hopes that the delay will only take two hours, there is a 63 percent chance that you will wait the 2 hours and still not be able to get the gun.

Forcing the gun dealer to wait on the telephone for up to a couple of hours means that the dealer can’t be making other gun sales.

A third problem is that there apparently more breakdowns occurring in the computer background check system. When the system breaks down no sales can be completed. Under the Clinton administration, the system was down for about 6 days each month. That problem essentially disappeared during the Bush administration, but it appears to be back under Obama, though the administration no longer keeps detailed data on how long these delays are.

We know how gun grabbers think....they want these background checks to make it harder and more expensive for regular people to get guns.....because while they know criminals can always get guns no matter what laws the gun grabbers pass....those laws will stop regular people from getting guns....and that is what matters most to them....

Stop projecting your lack of ethics on me. I am not a gun grabber. I am a citizen who wants to stop unethical gun sellers from abusing the law and using the gun show loophole to sell guns without a background check.

Interesting, you cite a scum bag liar like John Lott who is a right-wing author who has made claims about the benefits of guns using fabricated evidence. To support his points on the Internet, he adopts various pseudonyms (known as sock puppets) who write in supporting John Lott and giving his books good reviews.

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts

That's what you ALL say. You are all the same. YOU want to take away rights from citizens, then in the next breath, people like you will complain that the police are all racists. Sorry, but someone needs to inform you all that you are idiots.

anything c

The only extremists on this thread are on the right.... the absolutist mentality just doesn't pass for reasonable or intelligent.

I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.

I guess these guys are "gun-grabbers" too...

anything civilian police officers use in terms of firearms-us other civilians should be able to own and sporting purpose has no relevance to the second amendment.