14 out of 15 studies: Guns at home increase the risk of death

Been there, done that and there's no workable math solution to substantiate their conclusions.
Just numbers bantered about like fermented peaches for the intoxication of progressives.

SHOW ME THE MATH!!!!

 

Stevens hated gun ownership and dishonestly ignored that the commerce clause fiction was based on a complete rejection of original intent while Stevens pretended that the second amendment's attempt only applied to a federal military which is contrary to all known fact

Steven's dissent in Heller is one of the most widely lampooned turds ever laid in the USSC. Stevens was upset that the USSC rejected bad lower court rulings that were based on a dishonest and specious interpretation of the CRUIKSHANK decision. that decision 140 years ago held that the SECOND AMENDMENT DID NOT CREATE a right to KBA but merely recognized one. DISHONEST BANOID judges in lower courts twisted that to claim that since the 2nd amendment did not CREATE a right , it did not exist

 

If I were convinced that you weren't a troll then I might be motivated to do exactly that.

 

Agree with everything you've posted, Amen brother!
Have you read 1939 Miller decision?
I'm sure Stevens was familiar with it which makes him look to be an activist clown.

- - - Updated - - -

Well don't let laziness be your excuse.....

 

Yep, I am a major league donor to the 2AF. Sitting on my desk is their JOURNAL ON FIREARMS AND PUBLIC POLICY-"The cornerstones of 21st century Second Amendment Jurisprudence"

and those cases all refer to Heller. I have read heller probably 30 times in the last 35 years

I lectured on it at the U of Cincinnati Law School gathering of attorneys and Law professors many years ago and why, if properly interpreted, the Hughes Amendment was unconstitutional (the ban on private citizens owning machine guns made after May 19, 1986)

 

I'd like to agree machine guns should be legal but can't get there and serve my conscious.
Miller decision was about sawed off shotguns, agree with Miller or not, that's the precedence set that paved the way to machine gun ban.

 

the Miller decision was an attempt by a lapdog court to sustain FDR's blatantly unconstitutional law without doing anything more. You see if Militia membership was required for the 2A the court could have ruled that MILLER had no standing since he wasn't in the national guard. or they could have held that the Federal government could impose that sort of idiocy on any firearm. rather they limited to sawn off shotguns based on a fiction that there was no EVIDENCE that SOS were useful to the militia. That is because Miller had DIED by the time the case got to the supremes and HIS SIDE DID NOT appear nor provide any evidence that short barreled shotguns were actually in COMMON use by the military and guard units.

but the miller decision clearly stated that weapons that had clear militia usefulness were protected

what is more militia useful than the standard issue rifle of the national guard?

BTW how can anyone honestly say that the second amendment's prohibition on government interference somehow retreats based on how fast a firearm fires when that firearm is just as able to be kept and borne by citizens?

the line is between what the founders saw as arms (individual weapons that an individual would be able to keep and bear) vs stuff like cannons (artillery) or bombs (ordnance)

 

False. Far more toddlers die from drowning than guns. And drowning is the second leading of cause of death of children ages 1-14, behind car accidents:

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

Why do leftwing anti-gun nuts so easily dismiss facts when it doesn't fit their agenda?

So why don't you, as part of your progressive meddling, aim your ire at unsafe swimming pools? I know it's not as trendy in leftist circles as hating guns, but if you truly cared about children you would seek to curb the main cause of their deaths.

I've never understood how an adult, especially those with children, allow a phobia of guns to keep them from seeking to protect themselves. But as I said, as I've learned from my experiences as a police officer, you lefties are simply children yourselves, always seeking help from some type of 'official' or authority figure to solve all your woes...

 

Followed the links. The first one is a study of studies, kind of like the 97% garbage study of climate change. The second is an opinion piece with a link that does not back up the claim in one case.

You will see what you want to see when you point the flashlight in only one direction.

 

Do you also support prosecutors who do not enforce said laws, and rather ignore them in favor of offering plea bargains to expedite convictions on reduced charges? Do you support life sentences for those convicted felons using firearms to harm others in the commission of a crime?

 

Post hoc fallacy
/thread

 

Because it is not.

Again, the obvious question of "so what?" must be asked.

A great many things negatively impact the rest of society.

The free availability of alcohol and tobacco products, efforts to legalize marijuana, an overzealous police force that acts more like an invading army than public servants, widespread surveillance of all forms of communication by government, obesity, school dropout rates, unemployment, the united state justice system having a revolving door policy, the united states department of justice refusing to bring criminal charges against employees despite glaring violations of the law, career criminals being given lenient sentences while private citizens are subjected to malicious prosecution by overzealous prosecuting attorneys, the rampant spread of HIV and/or AIDS by the homosexual community engaging in unprotected sexual encounters with total strangers, the risks posed by climate change putting the polar ice caps at risk of melting, and countless other things both naturally occurring, and the direct result of humanity itself.

Why should firearms and suicides be focused on so obsessively, when there are so many other pressing matters that are worth addressing?

Obesity-related illnesses cost society one hundred and ninety billion dollars a year. That is more than four times the amount suicide costs.

 

Maybe you should follow your own advice. It doesn't take a lot of effort to keep posting the same cherry picked fact again and again.

 

The fact that other problems exist does not mean problems caused by firearms and suicide should be neglected. Just because people die of heart disease and cancer does not mean that traffic safety, for example, should be neglected. Next argument please.

 

the problem is =the stuff you argue for is of dubious value in actually promoting public safety. and your picking on guns when other things cause far more harm also raises flags. When taken together, the only conclusion that makes sense is that your jihad against gun ownership is based on a hatred of lawful gun owners and the groups that promote lawful gun use, not criminals

 

The fact that other things may cause more harm is not a good reason to oppose gun control. That would be like arguing that you shouldn't oppose DUIs because more people die from smoking. Next argument please.

 

we should oppose gun control because the gun control people like you propose is based on a dishonest motivation that is pernicious to freedom, has no value as crime control and is irrational

 

Problems related to the misuse of firearms are statistically minute when examined in the proper context. Heart disease for example is the leading cause of death in the united states, directly responsible for approximately five hundred and ninety eight thousand deaths per year. That is nearly twenty times the number of people whose deaths are in some way related to firearms, with a significant percentage attributed to poor dietary and exercise practices.

Medical malpractice, that being carelessness on the part of health care professionals, is responsible for approximately four hundred and forty thousands deaths per year, even with medical insurance.

Meanwhile the FBI reports that as much as eighty percent of the annual homicide rate in the united states is connected to known criminals with gang affiliations. That means nearly eight out of every ten homicides are committed by someone who served time in prison, and should still be in prison but was instead allowed back into society.

 

We oppose gun control because the people who want to most restrict it are also the ones who know nothing about the subject matter. We oppose gun control because no gun control measures will do anything to stop violent crime.

 

and most importantly-the real goal of the gun control people like him propose has no rational purpose in deterring crime but rather is specifically designed to harass lawful gun owners

 

There is a simple fact the completely refutes your claim.

With more guns in homes then ever before, why are homicides and accidental shootings at all time lows? If your claim is correct, there should be significant increases in shootings, but the opposite has happened.

 

Here is a good reason to oppose gun control....
It won't stop criminals from acquiring one of the 300 million+ guns in America. A determined criminal will get a gun. Many criminals haven't been convicted and can legally purchase a gun. Those that have been convicted either already have a gun or they will have a non felon girlfriend or buddy buy it for them.
Passing feel good legislation just so you can say you did "something" will not dent the gun crime stats.
There are ways to significantly drop gun crime stats, but you wouldn't be interested because controlling guns is more important to you than dropping gun crime stats.

 

The fact that it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking the law, however, is.

 

Sorry dude, I don't do progressive peach orchard slop, biting into the first article which suits my views.
Anything I post has to stand the test of objective scrutiny.
That said, U.S doesn't even make the top 25 in highest suicide rates per country.
Countries mind you with tighter gun control than U.S.

http://list25.com/25-countries-with-the-highest-suicide-rates-in-the-world/5/

 

This guy's arguing suicide by gun rates, if you debate him at a diminished level of talking points, you lose.

The burden of proof for him is given other choices, why wouldn't countries with strict gun control have lower suicide rates??

Take guns out of the equation and we see poison becomes the favorite suicide method of choice which blows the fairytale of less guns equate to lower suicide rates out of the water..... BOOM!!!!

Elevate the debate, do the homework required to TRUMP these clowns...