Please clarify the question. I'm not quite sure what you mean by: Re: If you are referring to "pro gunners" you could mean professionals in the shooting sports. For example: "Top 50 Women in Competitive Shooting" https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2017/6/19/top-50-women-in-competitive-shooting/ EXCERPT "From action pistol and bullseye champions, smallbore, high power and precision rifle masters, trapshooters and Olympic gold medalists—SSUSA has compiled this list of 50 (52 to be exact) female athletes that are influencing the ever-changing landscape of competitive shooting—for the better. Note: This isn’t a ranking, though we purposely grouped the first four women at the front in recognition of the attention generated by their respective shooting careers. Otherwise it’s a random selection, with the goal of presenting female shooters from as many disciplines as possible."CONTINUED However, I suspect that by "pro gunners", you mean supporters of the 2nd Amendment. In spite of what you may read in our anti gun MSM, there are no fewer supporters of the 2nd Amendment now than there ever have been. MSM either gives 2A supporters negative coverage or none at all. While MSM darling D. Hogg & his fellow Gun Ban lobby puppets have received a disproportionate amount of media coverage, it is a mistake to conclude that most millennials share their strident views (1) (1) "Millennials Are No More Liberal On Gun Control Than Elders, Polls Show" https://www.npr.org/2018/02/24/5880...liberal-on-gun-control-than-elders-polls-show EXCERPT "But past polling suggests that people younger than 30 in the U.S. are no more liberal on gun control than their parents or grandparents — despite diverging from their elders on the legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage and other social issues."CONTINUED
There wasn't anything inherently complex in my comment. Pro-gunners, as shown by this forum, hide from evidence. They rely on spurious conclusion, typically fed to them through 'group think' sites. Research tends to generate a critical outlook which destroys ideological limitation.
Castile wasn't murdered ..at worst it was overreaction by cop The police dashcam video[32] shows that 40 seconds elapsed between when Yanez first started talking to Castile through the car window and when Yanez began shooting at him. According to the dashcam, after Yanez asked for Castile's driver's license and proof of insurance, Castile gave him his proof of insurance card, which Yanez appeared to glance at and tuck in his outer pocket. Castile then calmly informed Yanez: "Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me."[33] Quoting the Star Tribune description of the next 13 seconds of the video: Before Castile completed the sentence, Yanez interrupted and calmly replied, "OK," and placed his right hand on the holster of his own holstered weapon. Yanez said, "Okay, don't reach for it, then ... don't pull it out." Castile responded, "I'm not pulling it out," and Reynolds also said, "He's not pulling it out." Yanez repeated, raising his voice, "Don't pull it out!" as he quickly pulled his own gun with his right hand and reached inside the driver's window with his left hand. Reynolds screamed, "No!" Yanez removed his left arm from the car and fired seven shots in the direction of Castile in rapid succession. Reynolds yelled, "You just killed my boyfriend!" Castile moaned and said, "I wasn't reaching for it." Reynolds loudly said, "He wasn't reaching for it." Before she completed her sentence, Yanez again screamed, "Don't pull it out!" Reynolds responded, "He wasn't." Yanez yelled, "Don't move! ****!"[33]
Re: I hope you can see the logical fallacy in forming an opinion about millions of Americans based on what you infer to be the opinions of a dozen PF members. Additionally, there is no evidence that draconian gun laws / bans would work in America at further reducing our homicide rate which still remains at historic lows(1). (1) "FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low" https://mises.org/wire/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low Public Unaware that Homicide Rates Have Fallen EXCERPT "As Pew has reported in recent years, in fact, the American public is "unaware" that the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. And while Pew doesn't report on it, it's also a safe bet that the public is also unaware that homicide rates have collapsed as total gun ownership in the United States has increased significantly."CONTINUED
Love this comment! So you're suggesting that pro-gunners on this forum are outliers? In what way? Are they more racist? More post-truth? Perhaps they all believe the lizard folk run the Illuminati?
Quit distorting what I've written. I said nothing about other forum members. I only noted that you are basing your flawed opinion about all 2nd Amendment supporters based on what about a dozen PF members have related. Please pay attention.
I haven't. You suggested that the sample of pro-gunners on this forum are likely to be inconsistent with the true population. I have asked you how. Please answer my questions. Is the sample more racist? Is it more incapable of assessing the research? Is it more likely to rely on conspiracy theory? Seems to me its a little silly to refer to logical fallacy when you don't even realise the consequences of your argument!
OK, I'm happy to to respond to all civil requests however I disagree that 2A supporters both at this forum and nationwide are generally "racist", "incapable of assessing the research" or "more likely to rely on conspiracy theory". You would first have to support your assertions with proof that either sample group exhibits those negative characteristics. Your loaded question is like asking: "Are pro gunners at this forum more likely to beat their wives than pro gunners, nationwide who beat their wives?" Concerning "...assessing the research", comparisons of America to other countries is logically flawed because no other country has the equivalent of America's 2nd Amendment & cherry picked "developed" countries are dissimilar from America in too many ways to make valid comparisons legitimate(1) Therefore, we can only compare America to America and America's homicide rate remains at still unacceptable historic lows (2), (3) in spite of factually flawed, emotionally charged whining about an "epidemic of gun violence" Additionally, Americans are becoming more conscious of handling guns safely(4) thanks, in part, to the NRA's extensive gun safety programs(5) but NOT any of the many old, heavily funded Gun Ban lobbies who dishonestly tout their goals as "gun safety". Briefly put, there are currently more guns in circulation than ever before in America's history yet there are fewer accidental gun deaths than ever before because Americans are safer with guns. Yes, the recent phenomenon of school shootings is unacceptable & must be addressed but since infamous members of our recent "shooter generation" are undeterred by existing gun laws, they are unlikely to heed additional gun laws. The best way to reduce or eliminate school shootings is not through additional unenforced gun laws & gun ban schemes which are only "feel good", "Cheap n' Easy non-solutions to a more complex & deeper problem. This complex & deeper problem can only be addressed by increased funding for our mental health & Juvenile Justice system so that deeply troubled individuals have easier access to a more extensive mental health network by which potential shooters can be detected & treated before they kill. In the future, please quote my posts in their entirety so that I am less likely to repeat myself & other readers can better analyze our discussion. Thanks (1) "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries" https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan."CONTINUED (2) "FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low" https://mises.org/wire/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low Public Unaware that Homicide Rates Have Fallen EXCERPT "As Pew has reported in recent years, in fact, the American public is "unaware" that the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. And while Pew doesn't report on it, it's also a safe bet that the public is also unaware that homicide rates have collapsed as total gun ownership in the United States has increased significantly."CONTINUED (3) "Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware" http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013...lic-unaware/#what-is-behind-the-crime-decline EXCERPT "Despite the attention to gun violence in recent months, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is markedly lower than it was two decades ago."CONTINUED (4) "Gun sales at all-time high, accidental gun deaths at record low" https://www.onenewsnow.com/science-...time-high-accidental-gun-deaths-at-record-low EXCERPT "Recently published statistics show that as gun sales in the United States have hit record highs, accidental gun fatalities have simultaneously sunk to record lows. The announcement by the National Safety Council (NSC) has taken ammunition away from the gun control activists, who have argued for years that fatalities and injuries in America increase as the number of firearms in citizen’s hands rises."CONTINUED (5) "Unspoken Virtue of the NRA: Promoting Gun Safety" https://www.huffingtonpost.com/eliyahu-federman/unspoken-virtue-of-the-nr_b_3410252.html EXCERPT "Talking politics alone or attempting to convince millions of Americans not to own guns will not constructively educate those people, just like talking abstinence alone will not adequately educate people on safe sex practices. You need specific instructions. Who is educating these millions of gun owners? It is largely the NRA, through its 93,000 NRA Certified Instructors nationwide, that trains about 750,000 people a year on gun safety. The NRA Eddie Eagle GunSafe firearm accident prevention program has reached over 25 million children, making it the most widely taught prevention program in the world. The program teaches children that if they see a gun, they should “STOP! Don’t Touch. Leave The Area. Tell An Adult.” CONTINUED
You're struggling with logic I'm afraid. I have referred to race comments by pro gunners on this forum. You have stated that I can't use this forum to make general comment. By definition, you must be arguing that this forum is a biased sample. You're now stating that it isn't. Inconsistency, at best. I believe that this forum is a fair representation of the pro gunner movement. You're the one suggesting otherwise (even if you don't realise it). I would also suggest that sampling is a less of a problem with pro gunners. See, for example, the typical reliance on copying and pasting from group think sites. Through activities by pressure group, there's much less heterogeneity in approach. Basic error here. The research tends to avoid cross country analysis. This reflects data problems (e.g variation in crime definitions). Sounds like an attempt at making spurious conclusion. You need to start by actually referring to the research. The inability to do that is certainly a common flaw by pro gunners. The only debate is the source. I would suggest that, due to ideological needs, avoiding evidence is required to minimise dissonance. Typically research doesn't focus on accidentally blowing off your big toe. That crimes continue does not inform us that policies are failing. You have to isolate gun control effects and show no impact on crime. If you knew the research you'd know that such hypothesis testing generates uncomfortable results for pro gunners. Gun control has repeatedly been shown to generate beneficial outcomes. Note how you say 'best way' without any reference to the primary research. Could you put that right? Another basic error. There is no notion that it is gun control and nothing else. Those supporting rational gun control measures, unsurprisingly are also in favour of other positive measures (such as increased investment in mental health care). I won't quote irrelevant comment. Thanks.
Re: You have still been unable to support your assertion that 2nd Amendment supporters either nationally or at this forum are "racist", "incapable of assessing the research" or "more likely to rely on conspiracy theory". Re: I've repeatedly cited the findings of research in my Post #33 & previous ones while you have yet to cite any valid research that supports the notion that further eviscerating the 2nd Amendment would make any of us any safer Re: This is precisely an example of an inability or unwillingness of gun banners to understand the research as the study I cited(1) focused on gun fatalities not gun related injuries. Re: If draconian gun laws generated beneficial outcomes (i.e. a lower homicide rate), why then are there 80 countries with far more stringent gun laws that have far higher homicide rates than the US(2) Since no other country has anything like America's 2nd Amendment, the US should lead the world in homicide rates according to your opinion that more guns make for more homicides. Re: First, please define what you mean by "rational gun control measures". Secondly, I don't doubt that some gun banners want a more accessible mental health system but the primary focus of the gun Ban lobbies has historically been the evisceration of our 2nd Amendment. For example, the Gun Ban lobbies' puppet, D. Hogg, is not focusing on the need for more expanded mental health care in his nationwide Gun Ban Bus ride. The incremental disarming law abiding Americans has been & remains their primary goal. (1) "Gun sales at all-time high, accidental gun deaths at record low" https://www.onenewsnow.com/science-...time-high-accidental-gun-deaths-at-record-low EXCERPT "Recently published statistics show that as gun sales in the United States have hit record highs, accidental gun fatalities have simultaneously sunk to record lows. The announcement by the National Safety Council (NSC) has taken ammunition away from the gun control activists, who have argued for years that fatalities and injuries in America increase as the number of firearms in citizen’s hands rises."CONTINUED (2) "Murder Rate By Country" https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/murder-rates-by-country.html
No, you are full of crap, you try to hide behind Maths, Science, peer reviewed studies then try to skunk Me with names as Anti Academia, when nothing could be further from the truth, My entire life has been a love of education, yet the entire premise of personal defence cannot be defined by equations anymore than can Romance, as both are far too complex to be so confined. You obfuscate since you cannot prove your position in any tangible way. Medicine is a great example, before 1890, Medicine was quite primitive, no idea of asepsis or aseptic procedures, no hand washing, no gloves, no antiseptic solutions, not even alcohol was used. Instruments were often re-used and not even boiled to sterilize. What did peer reviewed studies show ? The status quo, pure ineffable twaddle ! Yet Medicine evolved quickly after 1890, Halsted and others revolutionized Medicine once Politics was set aside, Science prevailed as Pasteur, Flemming and others proved infections cause and a remedy saving life & limb. Personal defense is the same type of deal, and many times, a small revolver saves lives. There is a difference between criminal use of firearms and legitimate use of firearms, and penalizing law abiding citizens only negatively impacts law abiding people as criminals manage to evade the efforts of Police at every turn. The only real solution is vigorous and effective prosecution of criminals. Make such laws Robust in nature.
You're asking for repetition. I don't think 2nd Amendment supports goes hand in hand with racism. I do know, for a fact, that the pro-gunners on here constantly bring up race, constantly ignore the scholarly evidence and constantly suggest an intellectual conspiracy. You seem to think that the 2nd Amendment demands inefficiently low levels of gun control. The US has always had gun control. Indeed, gun control intensified after the 2nd Amendment. This is discussed in Winkler (2007, Scrutinising the 2nd Amendment, Michigan Law Review, Vol 105 Issue 4, pp 683-733) and Cornell and DeDino (2004, A Well-regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control, Fordham Law Review, Vol 73); e.g. "The decades after ratification...saw increased, not decreased levels of regulation". There are of course numerous articles that test the link between guns and crime. Examples include:For more examples of the available evidence, also try these references: Cook, P.J., Molliconi, S. and Cole, T.B. (1995) “Regulating Gun Markets,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86: 59–92. Cook, P.J. and Leitzel, J.A. (1996) “‘Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy’: An Economic Analysis of the Attack on Gun Control,” Law and Contemporary Problems, 59: 91–118. Alschuler, A.W. (1997) “Two Guns, Four Guns, Six Guns, More Guns: Does Arming the Public Reduce Crime?” Valparaiso University Law Review, 31: 365–373. Black, D.A. and Nagin D.S. (1998 ) “Do Right-to-carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Journal of Legal Studies, 27: 209–219. Dezhbaksh, H. and Rubin, P. (1998 ) “Lives Saved or Lives Lost? The Effects of Concealed handgun Laws on Crime,” AEA Papers and Proceedings, 88: 468–474. Ayres, I. and Donohue, J.J., III (1999) “Nondiscretionary Concealed Weapons Laws:A Case Study of Statistics, Standards of Proof, and Public Policy,” American Law and Economics Review, 1: 436–470. Ayres, I. and Donohue, J.J., III (2003) “Shooting down the ‘More Guns Less Crime’ Hypothesis,” Stanford Law Review, 55: 1193–1305. Ayres, I. and Donohue, J.J., III (2003) “The Latest Misfires in Support of the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis,” Stanford Law Review, 55: 1371–1398. Cook, P.J. and Ludwig, J. (2004) “The Social Costs of Gun Ownership,” Journal of Public Economics, 90: 379–391. Cook, P.J. and Ludwig, J. (2004) “Principles for Effective Gun Policy,” Fordham Law Review, 73: 589–613. Cook, P.J. and Ludwig, J. (2004) “Does Gun Prevalence affect Teen Gun Carrying after All?” Criminology, 42: 27–54. Cook, P.J. and Ludwig, J. (2006) “Aiming for Evidence-based Gun Policy,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25: 691–735. Duggan (2001) "More Guns, More Crime," Journal of Political Economy, 109: 1086-114. Gius (2009) "The effect of gun ownership rates on homicide rates: a state-level analysis," Applied Economics Letters, 16: 1687-1690). Rubin, P.H. and Dezhbakhsh, H. (2003) “The Effect of Concealed Handgun Laws on Crime: Beyond the Dummy Variables,” International Review of Law and Economics, 23: 199–216. Mocan, H.N. and Tekin, E. (2006) “Guns and Juvenile Crime,” Journal of Law and Economics, 49: 507–531. Bridges (2004), “Gun Control Law, Suicide and Homicide in Canada, ” Psychological Reports, 94: 819-826. Nope. Its just an example of how you have constructed an irrelevant argument. Gun safety is not the focus on the available research (and that goes for both sides) . This merely informs me that you don't know any criminology. No one suggests that guns are the only factor impacting on crime. Criminologists will naturally isolate gun effects (controlling for numerous socio-economic factors etc). If you don't do that you are certainly guilty of making spurious conclusion. Those which effectively generate an outcome which internalises the crime externality. But, in simple terms, we just need evidence of a statistically significant effect on crime. Then why bring up mental health? All you've managed to do is advertise the sillness of using raw data to make evaluation (given everyone agrees that multiple factors impact on crime). Please improve your sources. You really should be referring to primary research by now.
Except that you produce no evidence, Truncate my posts, and ignore the truth. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has much research into Criminology far exceeding anything published by anyone extant. Mere numbers of licensed gun owners, Police reports and documented events of personal defense prove you wrong at every turn, you keep using statistical analysis based merely on criminal misuse of guns and this is mendacious, as it is only a tool used to restrict firearms use by law abiding citizens.
See above! Given I've presented dozens of research article to you, I'm really not interested in the fibbing.
Your entire existence is predicated on fibbing. Any research you have presented is myopic and limited to criminal misuses of firearms and condemnation of the Good along with the Wicked. You studiously ignore Truth. Firearms safeguard lives. What Cesar Beccaria said in 1764 still holds true.
I refer to the available objective research. Nothing more, nothing less. That you don't like it, and have to fib about it, only confirms that you're not a fan of education. Its basic literature review method after all.
Except my entire life has been centered around education and learning. You merely wish to couch your agenda against firearms in academia as a defense, since no published studies are based on fact. Too many salient points are ommited or intentionally distorted. Personal defense is a reality you simply refuse to admit. As a Retired Police Officer / Constable, I know far better. My evidence from police work is irrefutable and peer reviewed by countless Police agents Worldwide.
Because said research is flawed. My sidearm has never harmed me or the wrong person. I have survived every encounter with criminals, the criminals, not so much. Criminals do not get paroled from the cemetery. My Glock 17 is far supperior to any studies presented by my successes to date.
For the simple fact that it is not research. What is presented by yourself is nothing more than opinion pieces bought and paid for by the Joyce Foundation, relying on the use of fake science to try and trick the public into believing it is legitimate.
Re: I do not know that those who you categorize as "pro gunners" are guilty as charged nor do I agree that 2nd Amendment supporters, nationwide, fit your negative and bigoted stereotype. You have yet to specify precisely what you assert "the research" shows, what your argument is or how it relates to the OP. In other words, what is your point? Additionally, I am unimpressed by a brief list of books and / or articles that exemplify Gun Ban "group think" as I became intimately familiar with the use & misuse of primary sources in grad. school. Finally, until I know more precisely what you are proposing, I am unable to address your opinion more thoroughly.
I strongly suspect that the most strident gun banners either have little experience in the real world or live in cloistered worlds with armed bodyguards. I, too, am alive today only because I was armed while being threatened by thugs whose intent was not to make me or my neighbors any healthier, happier or wealthier. At the end of the day, I don't care what "the research" says, my HK45 is going to be nearby when I go to bed. Criminals, too, love gun control: "PRO GUN CONTROL AD - brought to you by The Patriotic Resistance"
1. A certain person is completely Anti Gun, that is a solid fact. 2. He thinks he is smarter than most 3. He speaks in elaborate terms and archaic manner using terms out of text books that he himself is not capable of explaining in simple terms. Vague notions and obscure references he dearly hopes no one will be capable of understanding. 4. Peer reviewed studies are important as related to Medicine, Pharmacology, Psychiatric research, yet at one time, peer reviewed studies also found hand washing to be nothing more than "ineffable twaddle". Until Pasteur and Fleming proved otherwise. 5. Vulgar name calling, uses Academia, vague and unproved maths with complex formulas, yet no actual tangible or even Robust methodology to actually correlate those findings with actual practice, since neither can actually be reconciled. Then use Emperors new clothes literary devices to shame people, even cow them into submission, or accuse them of being Anti Academia, or Cretinous behaviours. Sheer numbers prove those Academic studies wrong. Sheer numbers of law abiding citizens with concealed carry and spotless records, and less criminal convictions than the Official Police. To say that more firearms = more crime is mendacious and misleading, because it uses data incorrectly. You have dedicated criminals, gangs that sell illegal drugs for high profits, these gangs murder each other as a matter of doing business. Many gangs require a murder as a rite of initiation, Hell's Angels require a grisly murder in order to join their ranks. So do most criminal gangs here in the U.S. and territories, and when you really understand who are the ones committing the crimes, and who are the ones not committing the crimes, then you quickly realize that those peer reviewed studies are far divorced from reality. I challenge that person to honestly debate in simple terms, and prove that a simple small revolver, kept concealed until a moment of dire necessity, by a person perhaps weakened by sickness, ill health, advanced age, faced by 2 youthful attackers, is not well served by said small revolver. Or prove in simple terms, that a small weak but well trained female, is not well served or well defended, by a small simple revolver.
