With gun violence down, is America arming against an imagined threat?

[Uncensored2008]

I don't know which is sadder. The fact you're an idiot or that you're a Mom.

I suspect that the troll posting under that name is most likely male, 25-30, and living in Mom's basement.

 

[peach174]

So you think that you'd take on the government and the US army with your pea shooters?

Man, your grip on reality sure is tenuous.

You know that a vast majority of our Military would be fighting with civilians against a tyrannical government.
Let's see, over 88 million Americans with guns and 4 million with AK-15's and 47's (far cry from pea shooters) and a total of 2.26 million of our Military.
You are the one who needs to wake up to reality.

One side has tanks, cruise missiles, fighter planes, bombers, subs, nukes, aircraft carriers... Your side has pea shooters, good luck.
That you even think that it could come to that shows that you're mentally unstable... and should probably voluntarily surrender your pea shooters, before you hurt someone, including yourself.

Why did you ignore that I said that the majority of military will fight with the citizens?
It has not come to that yet, but could very well, if the government keeps tramping on our constitutional rights.
It is what the 2nd amendment is all about and why our founders put it in.
The 2nd amendment is about overthrowing a tyrannical government and about being able to defend our homes and families.

“Firearms stand next in importance of the Constitution itself.

They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”

General Washington



Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other counties
whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

James Madison


The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, at last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson

“No Free Man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Thomas Jefferson

See the Bold as a LAST RESORT

Our Declaration of Independence says it and defines it when we the people should overthrow our Government.
We the people have unalienable Rights which is Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
When our government continues with a long train of abuses and usurpations (wrongful or illegal encroachment, infringement, or seizure), pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism - such as certain departments of our government, not just our elected officials, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government.

 

[legaleagle_45]

One side has tanks, cruise missiles, fighter planes, bombers, subs, nukes, aircraft carriers... Your side has pea shooters, good luck.
That you even think that it could come to that shows that you're mentally unstable... and should probably voluntarily surrender your pea shooters, before you hurt someone, including yourself.

Indeed, them Iraqi insurgents were wiped out in 24 hours, while them Afghan rebels were destroyed in a few weeks... oh wait, never mind. What were you saying?

 

[legaleagle_45]

So to you losers, the 2nd amendment is to protect you in case you get attacked by the US army?

Fuck, are you stupid.

Madison... the guy who introduced the 2nd Amend to the 1st Congress on June 8, 1789 thought so, just read Federalist #46. In fact, he postulated that the federal army would not stand a chance. I tend to agree with Madison.

 

[FA_Q2]

FA-Q2 -

The above is my thesis. Your charts also indicate the same basic trends. Claiming "this disproves your theory" makes no sense unless you also explained HOW it disproves it. You didn't - and we both know why not.

Did you even bother to look at the graph?


Your chart showed a steady and rather even decline in the gun ownership per household over a 40 year time period. Very little variance in the decline at all.

The murder rate, however, is all over the damn place. From the beginning where there is a stark increase in the homicide rate in 1970 to around ’75 where it peaks and then sharply decreases for the next 5 years before increasing again for the next 5 years back to where it was and then plummets sharply over the following decade leveling out for about 5 years until you get to the next decline that is still in effect today.

What you have is a chart that shows a steady decline in gun ownership over 40 years with a variance of a few percentage points to the norm. The murder rate on the other hand has managed to fluxuate all over the place by quite a bit averaging 5 year trends in increases as well as decreases. They look NOTHING alike. Why did gun ownership decrease from 70 to 80 and the homicide rate increase? Why did gun ownership decrease and homicide rates remain flat from 2000 to 2005? Why did gun ownership decrease from 85 to 90 and homicide rates increase?

This is the exact same bullshit that you tried to pull with the last set of data. You ignore the fact that there is just as much data if not more that counters your argument.

 

[legaleagle_45]

btw. Spoonman - the graph is obviously PER CAPITA. Hence it does not matter how many people there are, does it?

Incorrect. the graphis is per household, not per capita... and it specifically says so.

The graph is "per 100,000 households" - so how does the USA having a large population invalidate the graph?

It doesn't - obviously.

What invalidates your thesis is that the size of the American Household has declined, resulting in substantially more households per capita than in the late 60's early 70's. This in turn was fueled by a demographic shift in the very nature of the American Household with a substantially greater households being described as "female head of household". Thus, the actual rate of gun ownership may have increased per capita while the ownership rate per household has declined. This reflects a cultural shift where women delayed marriage or remained divorced and started their own independent households... something that was quite rare in the 50's and 60's. The fact is that women are about half as likely as men to own firearms. A substantial increase in the number of households by a measure of 1/3rd occured and which could not be explained by the increase in the population... almost all of it attributed to the increase in households where a woman was described as the head of household. Do the math...

 

[The Rabbi]

Incorrect. the graphis is per household, not per capita... and it specifically says so.

The graph is "per 100,000 households" - so how does the USA having a large population invalidate the graph?

It doesn't - obviously.

What invalidates your thesis is that the size of the American Household has declined, resulting in substantially more households per capita than in the late 60's early 70's. This in turn was fueled by a demographic shift in the very nature of the American Household with a substantially greater households being described as "female head of household". Thus, the actual rate of gun ownership may have increased per capita while the ownership rate per household has declined. This reflects a cultural shift where women delayed marriage or remained divorced and started their own independent households... something that was quite rare in the 50's and 60's. The fact is that women are about half as likely as men to own firearms. A substantial increase in the number of households by a measure of 1/3rd occured and which could not be explained by the increase in the population... almost all of it attributed to the increase in households where a woman was described as the head of household. Do the math...

That's too subtle for the ignoramus in chief here. He has four separate studies that all show that "guns are declining in America" and that purports to explain the lower crime rate. All evidence to the contrary is ignored, ridiculed, or labeled as propaganda.
There is no hope. The stupid is strong in this one.

 

[FA_Q2]

The graph is "per 100,000 households" - so how does the USA having a large population invalidate the graph?

It doesn't - obviously.

What invalidates your thesis is that the size of the American Household has declined, resulting in substantially more households per capita than in the late 60's early 70's. This in turn was fueled by a demographic shift in the very nature of the American Household with a substantially greater households being described as "female head of household". Thus, the actual rate of gun ownership may have increased per capita while the ownership rate per household has declined. This reflects a cultural shift where women delayed marriage or remained divorced and started their own independent households... something that was quite rare in the 50's and 60's. The fact is that women are about half as likely as men to own firearms. A substantial increase in the number of households by a measure of 1/3rd occured and which could not be explained by the increase in the population... almost all of it attributed to the increase in households where a woman was described as the head of household. Do the math...

That's too subtle for the ignoramus in chief here. He has four separate studies that all show that "guns are declining in America" and that purports to explain the lower crime rate. All evidence to the contrary is ignored, ridiculed, or labeled as propaganda.
There is no hope. The stupid is strong in this one.

The real problem is that the accuracy of the graph and those that follow it is meaningless. If we give him the fact that they are utterly accurate, even then, they don’t support the thesis that lower gun ownership rates = lower homicide rates. The graphs do not show that when compared to the actual homicide rate as the homicide rate goes both up and down when gun ownership just goes down.

 

[Saigon]

Incorrect. the graphis is per household, not per capita... and it specifically says so.

The graph is "per 100,000 households" - so how does the USA having a large population invalidate the graph?

It doesn't - obviously.

What invalidates your thesis is that the size of the American Household has declined, resulting in substantially more households per capita than in the late 60's early 70's. This in turn was fueled by a demographic shift in the very nature of the American Household with a substantially greater households being described as "female head of household". Thus, the actual rate of gun ownership may have increased per capita while the ownership rate per household has declined. This reflects a cultural shift where women delayed marriage or remained divorced and started their own independent households... something that was quite rare in the 50's and 60's. The fact is that women are about half as likely as men to own firearms. A substantial increase in the number of households by a measure of 1/3rd occured and which could not be explained by the increase in the population... almost all of it attributed to the increase in households where a woman was described as the head of household. Do the math...

I think that is a fair point, actually. I agree the average household has gotten smaller, though perhaps not dramatically enough to shift the figures massively.

I totally agree - and have said many times - that the total number of guns may well be rising.

Again, i am not suggesting that the decline in the number of househplds ownibg guns has caused the fall in the homicide rate, hence I would not expect the graphs to correlate - I am only suggesring that it may be a contributing factor. Logic would suggest so, I think.

However, all 4 surveys show that 50% of households used to have guns, and now only 35% do.That is such an enormous sea change that I don't believe a 2013 surge in gun sales or a drop in the size of households with shift the figures very much. Does anyone?

 

[Saigon]

Rabbi -

He has four separate studies that all show that "guns are declining in America" and that purports to explain the lower crime rate.

Not at all - I simply mentioned it as a possible contributing factor.

All evidence to the contrary is ignored, ridiculed, or labeled as propaganda.
There is no hope. The stupid is strong in this one.

That absolutely defines your posting, doesn't it?!

Great self-awareness, Rabbi!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi -

He has four separate studies that all show that "guns are declining in America" and that purports to explain the lower crime rate.

Not at all - I simply mentioned it as a possible contributing factor.

All evidence to the contrary is ignored, ridiculed, or labeled as propaganda.
There is no hope. The stupid is strong in this one.

That absolutely defines your posting, doesn't it?!

Great self-awareness, Rabbi!!!

So now that several people have pointed out the errors of your thesis you are ready to admit you are wrong?

 

[Mom]

So to you losers, the 2nd amendment is to protect you in case you get attacked by the US army?

Fuck, are you stupid.

Madison... the guy who introduced the 2nd Amend to the 1st Congress on June 8, 1789 thought so, just read Federalist #46. In fact, he postulated that the federal army would not stand a chance. I tend to agree with Madison.

I can see where the 2nd was needed BACK IN 1776! But seriously, today it's not needed for that reason. Stop living in the past. You can take your powdered wig off now.

 

[Mom]

One side has tanks, cruise missiles, fighter planes, bombers, subs, nukes, aircraft carriers... Your side has pea shooters, good luck.
That you even think that it could come to that shows that you're mentally unstable... and should probably voluntarily surrender your pea shooters, before you hurt someone, including yourself.

Indeed, them Iraqi insurgents were wiped out in 24 hours, while them Afghan rebels were destroyed in a few weeks... oh wait, never mind. What were you saying?

That you even think that it could come to that shows that you're mentally unstable... and should probably voluntarily surrender your pea shooters, before you hurt someone, including yourself.

 

[Saigon]

I can see where the 2nd was needed BACK IN 1776! But seriously, today it's not needed for that reason. Stop living in the past. You can take your powdered wig off now.

You forget that the constitution is a religious and divine document written by gods. It is perfect and divine and was dreamt up by angels who knew that the military-style submachine gun would one day be invented.

It is not like the bible, some parts of which are obviously outdated and need to be re-interpreted to meet 21st century thinking.

 

[The Rabbi]

So to you losers, the 2nd amendment is to protect you in case you get attacked by the US army?

Fuck, are you stupid.

Madison... the guy who introduced the 2nd Amend to the 1st Congress on June 8, 1789 thought so, just read Federalist #46. In fact, he postulated that the federal army would not stand a chance. I tend to agree with Madison.

I can see where the 2nd was needed BACK IN 1776! But seriously, today it's not needed for that reason. Stop living in the past. You can take your powdered wig off now.

Yeah, we dont need the 1A either. Let's let the gov't decide what kind of speech we're entitled to. Religion? The state has no business in religion. Ban all of them.
Any other rights you'll happily see gone?

 

[The Rabbi]

I can see where the 2nd was needed BACK IN 1776! But seriously, today it's not needed for that reason. Stop living in the past. You can take your powdered wig off now.

you forget that the constitution is a religious and divine document written by gods. It is perfect and divine and was dreamt up bu angels who knew that the military-style submachine gun would one day be invented.

It is not like the bible, some parts of which are obviously outdated and need to be re-interpreted to meet 21st century thinking.

So now that several people have pointed out the errors of your thesis you are ready to admit you are wrong?

 

[Mom]

I can see where the 2nd was needed BACK IN 1776! But seriously, today it's not needed for that reason. Stop living in the past. You can take your powdered wig off now.

you forget that the constitution is a religious and divine document written by gods. It is perfect and divine and was dreamt up bu angels who knew that the military-style submachine gun would one day be invented.

It is not like the bible, some parts of which are obviously outdated and need to be re-interpreted to meet 21st century thinking.

So now that several people have pointed out the errors of your thesis you are ready to admit you are wrong?

If you want to hunt and need a gun, fine. But to say that you need it in case you get attacked by the US army, then you're fucking

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you want to hunt and need a gun, fine. But to say that you need it in case you get attacked by the US army, then you're fucking

You're what, 26 or 27, living in moms basement, pretending to be a woman on the interwebz, never held a job, didn't complete high school, spend your days smoking dope and jerking off: And we should follow your wisdom instead of the Constitution?

Really?

 

[Mom]

If you want to hunt and need a gun, fine. But to say that you need it in case you get attacked by the US army, then you're fucking

You're what, 26 or 27, living in moms basement, pretending to be a woman on the interwebz, never held a job, didn't complete high school, spend your days smoking dope and jerking off: And we should follow your wisdom instead of the Constitution?

Really?

A pseudo-insult is your only comeback? I guess if you really have nothing intelligent to say, then I've probably already won this debate.

 

[The Rabbi]

you forget that the constitution is a religious and divine document written by gods. It is perfect and divine and was dreamt up bu angels who knew that the military-style submachine gun would one day be invented.

It is not like the bible, some parts of which are obviously outdated and need to be re-interpreted to meet 21st century thinking.

So now that several people have pointed out the errors of your thesis you are ready to admit you are wrong?

If you want to hunt and need a gun, fine. But to say that you need it in case you get attacked by the US army, then you're fucking

The 2A is not about hunting.