When did you use your gun defensively?

Didn't figure you'd keep going on this theme.

 

That's how people convincing themselves to be on the wrong side of this issue.

 

No, I understand fear and rationalization.

 

No. You are projecting your fear of firearms on to a demographic you know nothing about.

 

Any response to the hundreds of studies I listed?

 

Re:

This is one of the most frequently cited deceptions used by those who are enemies of the 2nd Amendment. For practical purposes we must admit that the US is in no way like Norway, Japan or any one of the other cherry picked, small and older countries. (1)
Additionally, the US will be even less like those high income countries when Biden throws the gates at our Southern border open even wider.

Instead of adding on to the 20,000 existing feel-good-do-nothing gun laws that are already ignored by criminals, why not devote the time and $ Billions on making mental health more accessible and affordable?
In other words, treat / incarcerate the criminal and you reduce the crime.

After all, if you're going to compare America to other countries, why not compare the US to all the countries including countries that have complete bans on civilian gun ownership.
You'll soon find that there are over 50 countries(2) that have complete gun bans and have much higher homicide rates than the US.

Therefore, if more "common sense" gun laws "for the children" don't work in these total gun ban countries, how would anything less work here in the US?


(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.

The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.

Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so." CONTINUED


(2) "Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking"
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings

 

I don't fear guns, I just don't like what they have done to the social order and as far as your demographic goes... " Research has likewise shown that the decision to obtain a firearm is largely motivated by past victimization and/or fears of future victimization (Kleck et al., 2011; Hauser and Kleck,)."

Hundreds? You must have missed Mr. Well Bonded citation of an opinion piece with a libertarian spin. It said there were 27,900 research papers that Rand analyzed and by their criteria (whatever that was) only 127 tested the effects of gun control "rigorously". While leaving out the fact that some of those research paper subject's were not testing the effects of gun control, what issues could make them less "rigorous"? One thing would be a small sample size causing a large margin of error. Another would be they were not long term studies. What could be hampering those two issues? Could it be......funding?

It is a mystery to me, if we are among the "two dozen highest income countries" how are we cherry picking countries. If we are among the most advanced nations in the world and have the highest homicide rate it seems something needs to be done about it, don't you think? Then you throw in the open borders Joe BS and I know who I'm working with.

Then its the old nugget the NRA made up, "20,000 existing feel-good-do-nothing gun laws". Even if the number was remotely true they were counting the same law but in a different state. Each state with a license to carry law would be counted as a different law. The number is useless.

Speaking of ripe for cherry picking is comparing countries that ban guns for civilian use. You've got places like China with a homicide rate of 0.5/100k or Somalia which has practically no government, warlords with militias and no way of knowing the homicide rate (150/100k?).

So the US can say we have a strong central government that's relatively uncorrupt, low poverty rate (10%), an educated populace, a member of the developed world by any standard....except loose gun laws and the highest homicide rate...Hmmm.

You did say one thing I can agree with. Increased funding for mental health treatment. Also making it easier for those that have done their time to reenter society, get a job, rent an apartment, get a loan, etc.

 

I gave you a list of hundreds of gun control studies. Here's the claim you support: " Yet the government, at the behest of the gun lobby, limits the collection of data on gun-related deaths, prevents researchers from obtaining such data, and severely restricts funds for gun research"

Given that just three researchers have published hundreds of studies on gun violence and gun control, if the claim above was true, then either the gun control researchers knowingly published studies with bad or incomplete data, making them liars, or they didn't realize they had bad or insufficient data and the results of their studies are necessarily bogus.

With regards to funding, the Chan School of Public Health at Harvard has an endowment of $350M; the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins has an endowment of $360M. The issue isn't a lack of funding; it's a lack of government funding. They want to spend taxpayers' money, not their own.

 

I think that's illegal in most countries.

BTW, I live in Germany. Guns here are used exclusively at the shooting club or for hunting. Most police officers here did never shoot at a human being during their entire service time.

The Gun violence rate in Germany is very low. I don't know why. It's no more difficult to buy an (illegal) firearm here than in other Western countries.

 

Again, the word “fear” is the subjective opinion of someone you are parroting. If the study subjects “fear” victimization, you “fear” what a demographic has “done” (in your unsubstantiated opinion) to society.

Can you define my demographic? What demographic am I a part of?

Many people in the demographic that have firearms for protection don’t like what progressives have done to the social order. They don’t like the progressive policies that have intentionally destroyed the family unit that is the biggest factor in preventing all crime, gun crime included. Their vote against progressive policies hasn’t eliminated crime. Their taxes that have gone to social programs have exacerbated the crime problem. Their taxes that support law enforcement hasn’t worked to protect innocents from criminals.

So they do something concrete to protect themselves. You are not willing to protect yourself so you expect law enforcement to do it. With their guns and violence. You pay law enforcement to do your dirty work but criticize law abiding demographics that take personal responsibility for their own safety.

You are unhappy with societal problems so you wish to remove rights from others using force you hire. The ones you wish to violate the rights of differ from you in one way—they are willing to do their own heavy lifting while you wish to hire yours out.

 

Re:

You might be surprised since we apparently agree that more accessible and affordable mental health treatment and care is the best approach to reducing violence using all weapons.

I hope that you will notice that one of the many differences between the US and those "two dozen highest income countries" is that their mental health care is more accessible and affordable.

To be honest, I don't know how many gun laws are in place throughout the US but it doesn't matter because criminals, by definition, do not obey the law; existing laws or proposed laws.

Finally, I'll also admit that many of the 50+ countries that have higher homicide rates than the US are in no way like America. However, if you look at all the countries you'll see that some with complete gun bans are as much like the US as many of the "two dozen highest income countries"

There are many factors contributing to today's violent crime rate but I simply believe that attempting to manipulate human behavior by further restricting inanimate objects (guns, booze, drugs etc) diverts attention from more effective measures.

Thanks,

 

Well, quite the conundrum. Researchers complain of lack of federal funding because of interference from the gun lobby. You say, I guess, they have enough money to do their studies, without the CDC or other government agencies participating. Then there is the Libertarians example of the Rand study that said of the 27,900 gun studies looked at 99.6% did not test the effects of gun control "rigorously" and shouldn't be used as models for passing gun laws.

The conclusion I come to is there is a deficit in our knowledge of the effects, benefits or deficits when it comes to gun control and we need to learn more. Right? You with me?

In the US it is incredibly easy to buy a gun (or assemble one) without any vetting...go to armslist.com

Well you just substantially colored in your demographic. Right-wing 2A fundamentalist who's fallen for all the old right-wing tropes and when confronted with an opposing viewpoint makes outlandish assumptions about that person to settle his ego...Did I get it?

What are the more effective measures for reducing gun violence than restricting access to guns? And any proof?

 

And yet, the lack of federal funding for federal gun control studies does not in any way shape or form affect private studies of the subject.
As you know.

 

So you're stating that these professional researchers, all well regarded researchers in some top Schools of Public Health of some of the most prestigious universities in the world published hundreds of studies on gun violence despite an apparent lack of federal research dollars and valid data? Given the large endowments of those Schools of Public Health which manage to pay the salaries of those professors and fund the hundreds of studies on gun violence that they published, complaining about a lack of federal funding seems a bit dishonest. They don't seem to need taxpayer money, so why should we give it to them?

What's' more interesting is that each of these professors, and lots more to boot, published those hundreds of studies claiming that their data was valid as were the results of each of those studies (and all of the peers in those peer reviews, too). Your source Rand however reveals that despite the funding by seriously big endowments of well-known researchers using data they accepted as valid and sufficient to publish these esteemed studies that actually the studies are crap. If the data is there, and the funding is there, the crap must be being produced by the researchers. I certainly don't think we should fund them with taxpayer dollars.

EDIT: 27,900 gun control studies, and you're telling us there isn't enough funding?

 

I’ve made no assumptions. Only stated facts. You are the one assuming fear drives firearm ownership. It’s an objective fact you hire out your security. You are welcome to try again.

 

I have never felt the need to carry, however, I certainly understand there are those who don't feel safe out in public without a gun which they have every right to do. And carrying doesn't have to be justified by "harrowing" stories.

 

I don't understand why addressing gun violence should take precedence over addressing violence of all types unless it is to placate the gun phobias of hoplophobes who know nothing about guns except that they hate them.

Therefore, by focusing additional time and energy on only gun violence, all that is being addressed are the phobias of a few irrational people, not any serious and effective measures to reduce deadly violence of all types
.
I already mentioned that increasing access to more affordable mental health care as the most effective means to reducing violence of all kinds and that is one of the many differences between the the US and the frequently cited two dozen highest income countries.

At least in my state, Virginia, I feel that there are more than adequate restrictions on access to guns and any more restrictions would violate the already endangered 2nd Amendment.

Thanks,

 

In Germany too, bro. Just run the TOR browser, enter the darknet and you'll find plenty of illegal gun dealers wanting to sell you an automatic pistol for under 100€.

 

When you say "automatic pistol" do you mean fully automatic / select fire* like a "machine gun" or semi-automatic ( a single shot each time you pull the trigger).

I have friends that own fully automatic / select fire* rifles but to own one you have to pay a special tax.

Thanks,


* "select fire" means that the firearm has the capacity to fire either semi automatic or fully automatic.

 

What you don't seem to understand is the federal government has a responsibility in the national interest to protect health and safety. That entails coordinating research that provides a large overview to evaluate trends and make recommendations for laws and regulations and that has been specifically prevented only in one area...odd.

I must be right about you since I get no argument.

I take reasonable safety precautions. You seem to think you do not need or never will need the police. Vigilante much? They do a fine job in my city, but I don't expect them to be my personal protectors. Gun toters on the whole overestimate the dangers of social contact.

Gun violence is often lethal, that is why it may take precedence over other violence. It is not gun phobia. It is denial of the problem by a certain sector who don't want to be bothered.

All we need gang bangers to do is go see a counselor?

Maybe the difference is if caught here it is up to 1 year in jail and in Germany it is up to 10 years in jail.

 

It hasn't even been prevented in that "one area".

Post-Dickey Act CDC studies
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mm...PpGr4VRc-bd3jV3o5mvmeeOwRFEzZ6-WRBZjlaByOP130
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3
https://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf
DOJ studies:
https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/list?subtopic=12476
DOJ statistics:
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43
CDC data:
https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html
FBI UCR - government violence tracking.
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr

The CDC has no gun violence on staff. Any studies that they want to conduct will have to be contracted out to people like Wintemute, etc.

Illegal possession of a firearm by a prohibited person is subject to 10 years imprisonment. Straw purchases are subject to 10 years imprisonment. Pretty much all offenses under 18 USC 922g are subject to 10 years imprisonment.

 

No it doesn't have a responsibility to protect health and safety. That's your mommy that has that responsibility.

It's responsibility as to the Constitution is to not interfere with rights.

Rights are negative in nature. This isn't the Soviet Union.

So? How often do you encounter a gun toter that shoots you or anybody else or even draws their weapon?

Sounds like you have a persecution complex

How does a certain sector (50 million people) cause gun violence?

Typically no it's too late by then.

So why not just make it punishable by the death penalty? Oh wait 30 years in death row doesn't deter crime but a ten year "jail" sentence does... Lol

How comical.

 

I mean "semi-automatic".
Are there any handguns that behave like machine guns?

 

Glock 18, Beretta 92r, some small Uzis and Ingram MAC series.

 

Yes, there are handguns that are select fire (semi automatic or fully automatic) but they are difficult to control when set to fire on fully automatic mode.

Almost any semi automatic pistol can be altered to fire fully automatic.

MAC 10