When did you use your gun defensively?

I went into a detailed intellectual argument comparing people who practice personal responsibility to those who wish to make others responsible for them. You came back with ad hominem attack about ego…

Are you sure? How many times have you been raped, robbed, burgled, or assaulted? How many times have law enforcement officers actively prevented you experiencing any of the above?

Strawman fallacy. Quote me advocating for vigilantism. Quote me saying I would never need police! Go ahead. I’m on record on PF in firearm discussions explaining how where I live law enforcement and citizens work together using firearms to get things done that need doing. I use law enforcement services a lot. I’ve had law enforcement ask me to use a firearm in their absence to carry out their duties. Please try and avoid strawman arguments and address my comments.

Some law enforcement here sucks. Some is great. Just like some gun owners suck and some are great and some people who dislike guns are great people. You are generalizing about a demographic you have no knowledge of. If you say gun toters (whatever that is) overestimate dangers then you do if you lock your car or house and don’t get robbed often. You overestimate fire danger if you have smoke alarms and you’ve never had your house burn down. You overestimate danger of carbon monoxide poisoning if you have a CO alarm but have never been subjected to CO poisoning.

 

People were finding ways to kill each other long before the invention of the firearm and even find ways to kill each other in prison.

I know people who regard a firearm with the same shock and irrational fear that they have for a snake.

Yes, I even have friends who are gun control advocates. We simply agree to disagree and still enjoy each other's company anyway.
One couple even let me show their 8 year old son the basics of gun safety and how to shoot safely even though they are anti 2nd Amendment people.
The boy was eager to shoot and would eventually have encountered a gun somewhere anyway.

 

That is another flat out lie, a firearm purchased through Armslist must by federal law be shipped to a FFL, if a private person is buying that firearm, they then must go to that FFL and go through a NICS check and comply with all state laws such as a waiting period.

Why don't you cease making things up?

 

So all the expert testimony aside and the fact that the Dickey Amendment, prohibited the use of federal funds to "advocate or promote gun control," leading to the elimination of CDC funding to conduct firearm-related research. You still think it hasn't had a lasting impact still limiting what we know today about gun violence?

Dickey says he "served as the NRA's point person in Congress" to cut the gun violence research budget.

An example in 2004 $461,759 was allocated for research. In those years since the amendment researchers have moved away from the subject and programs cut. In 2019 after Parkland, Trump and Congress loosened the strings.

Illegal gun possession varies by state, I was referencing mine.

So what are the purposes of FDA, CDC, EPA, OSHA, FTA, DHS, ATF, NTSB....and on and on?

How is me taking reasonable safety precautions (as apposed to lethal safety precautions) make me sound like I have a persecution complex? Odd.

As a member of that sector, the fact that guns are ubiquitous and easily obtained hasn't crossed your mind is amazing.

Again with laws don't stop criminals, then why have them.....is just dumb.

I must have missed it. Was that the one about gun owners are right-wing and make a lot of unfounded assumptions about "progressives" and the usual right-wing tropes? That intellectual argument?

I don't take illegal drugs, belong to a gang and I'm not poor, so I live in a very statistically safe world. The problem is a certain sector of the population overestimates the danger posed by society. They become armed raising the statistical probability that some of those people will be stupid, have anger issues, be depressed or are mental increasing the odds of misuse. The other problem is they don't want stricter laws to prevent criminals from being armed.

"Quote me advocating for vigilantism". You said concerning the use of the police department, gun owners "are willing to do their own heavy lifting while you wish to hire yours out." You will, not the po-po, uphold the law? Sounds like vigilantism to me.

You know technology has progressed since 2A. The weapon of choice for mass shooters an AR 15 with multiple high capacity magazines for the "best" body count. It is really not good for much else, besides as a badge for what side of the gun debate you're on. The efficiency of a killing machine has evolved from 3 rounds a minute to 100, so things are different.

Get real. You contact a gun seller in your city on armslist and make arrangements to meet in a Walmart parking lot and take care of business.

 

authority and control.

no it's your belief that all these people with all these guns that never shoot you and you probably never even know that they're there persecute you without really persecuting you.

No because they're in ubiquity doesn't seem to increase instances of gunfire you know how many times have been shot never once you know how many times I've shot someone never wants in a country where 50 million people own 500 million and you're not getting shot everyday means that these people are no threat to you.

You are playing victim.

well then why don't we just make a law against murder and stop all the murders.

Duh.

 

Again, I’ve made no assumptions. I’ve addressed facts about how progressives prefer to depend on others for many things including security. I’ve shown how it doesn’t matter whether you depend on yourself or others for security, the motivation is the same. And it isn’t fear. Please refrain from the strawman argument that I’m right wing. I’m a socialist—likely far left of you. I’m just not authoritarian.

You won’t sway me with elitism. I abhor elitism. Not everyone lives in a world as statistically safe as you and I. I refuse to project my circumstances onto others at more risk.

How many people drive a large vehicle to gain advantage (safety) in the event of a multi vehicle accident? That act puts others in more danger relative to the individual with the larger vehicle. The lifetime odds of dying in a vehicle crash is about 1 in 105. The lifetime odds of dying from gunshot is double that. The lifetime odds of dying from all preventable causes of death is 1 in 21. You are more likely to die from becoming obese through social contagion than to be killed by a firearm. But here you are rambling on about how dangerous firearms are to society and how others overestimate risk. It’s analogous to a person driving across the country because of their concern about the safety of flying commercial.

Who is against criminals not being armed? Felons are prohibited.

A very small demographic is committing firearm crime. No matter how it’s measured, the recidivism rates for gun crime offenders is significantly higher than for other crime categories. Based on bureau of justice data, the average incarceration period for violent crime is three years. Guns are not the problem. Perhaps we should address the failures of current law before further infringing on rights of the law abiding.

Ah, you don’t know what the term vigilantism means.

Can you please cite the law prohibiting self defense in the United States. The legal authority to self defense exists! While you are looking for that consider these cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

And: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

That does happen. What law do you think will prevent it, and how?

 

"An AR-15 with multiple high capacity magazines"...

When you hear such ignorant rhetoric you know the person who spouted it knows very little on the subject.

 

~ I think people who fear gun ownership watch The View too damn much ...

 

100% false, a firearm can only be shipped to a FFL, that is a federal law, in order for that FLL to transfer that firearm to a individual a 4473must be filled out and a NICS check must be run.

It is quite clear you have no idea of what is involved and are just making stuff up.

For a person to lawfully transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person who resides out of State, the firearm must be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the recipient’s State of residence. He or she may then receive the firearm from the FFL upon completion of an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS background check. More information can be obtained on the ATF website at www.atf.gov.

 

i have a question for you.

How would you describe a person who strives to leave other law abiding people defenseless against the criminal elements in our society?

 

We've had hundreds and thousands of studies published by the experts in the field, some of which you quoted earlier complain about NFA pushback, lack of data and lack of funding. CDC has no experts on staff; with government funding they would simply contract out the research to the very same people who have been conducting thousands of studies since Dickey.

Here's a list of two of the major libraries of gun control studies. What could possibly have been missed?


https://www.jhsph.edu/research/cent...-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/research/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/

And here's why:

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.
But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.covert surveillance program ” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994."

Taxpayer money should not be spent on efforts by the government to infringe on the rights of the people, and certain not to fund "scientific" studies by a government agency whose results are pre-determined.

Dickey doesn't prevent tax dollars from being use for government research on gun violence - it prevents it from being use for research whose primary goal is to show a need for more gun control. Here are three CDC studies and multiple DOJ studies funded by government after Dickey. Are you ignoring these because the results aren't what you want?

Would you expect CDC studies with the exact same results as those by Kellermann, Wintemute, Webster et al to suddenly allow the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS to pass new gun control?

Here's a question: if the need for CDC studies is so dire to show us which gun control is necessary and effective, as indeed the Democratic Party includes in their platform, why do they have a list of unscientific gun control laws that they are trying to impose on the American people?

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

How much was spend on these studies?


https://www.jhsph.edu/research/cent...-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/research/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/

 

I feel certain that the Founding Fathers anticipated that firearms would become more sophisticated as there were already several multi-shot firearms in production.

Like most all people who chose to own an AR-15, I use mine for target practice since it is most like the M-16 I was issued in the military. They are also popular in competitive "3 Gun" shooting and other forms of sport shooting(*) so they are really not just for killing people.

Additionally, there are far deadlier ways to kill a large number of people than with an AR-15 and only a tiny percent of all homicides are committed with that rifle. Far more people die from medical malpractice, drowning, knives etc. In fact, more people are killed by knives than by all rifles combined.

If rifles like the AR-15 are banned, mass killers will simply resort to any number of crude and readily available WMDs like Anthrax and other bio-Chem weapons, Molotov Cocktails, home made bombs etc. Therefore, I have frequently cited the "Happy Land" fire (1) as an example of what happens when a determined killer does when he can't find a gun.

The killer in this case couldn't find a gun to kill just one person so he managed to kill that person and 86 more with just a crude WMD made from just one dollar's worth of gasoline.

I think that it is worth noting that the deadliest, school mass killing, too, was not done not with any firearm but with another crude WMD(2). Of all the mass school shootings, not one has been as deadly as this one about 90 years ago.

I fear that if AR-15s etc are banned, determined killers will simply resort to using even deadlier crude WMDs that will obviously kill more innocent people.

Thanks,



(*)" Competition AR-15 Basics with Josh Froelich"
https://www.arbuildjunkie.com/competition-ar-15-josh-froelich/

(1) "Happy Land fire"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

EXCERPT "González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline.[2][4] He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[5]

Eighty-seven people died in the resulting fire."CONTINUED


(2) "The 1927 Bombing That Remains America’s Deadliest School Massacre"

"Ninety years ago, a school in Bath, Michigan was rigged with explosives in a brutal act that stunned the town"
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...chool-massacre-180963355/#KSipwm4IUrIbB9uc.99

EXCERPTS "In the end 44 people died, 38 of them students. It wasn’t the first bombing in the country’s history—at least eight were killed during the Haymarket Square rally in Chicago in 1886, and 30 when a bomb exploded in Manhattan in 1920. But none had been so deadly as this, or affected so many children."CONTINUED

 

~ Exactly on point ... ✔

 

Federal regulators are just in it for "control and authority"? You have some authority issues you need to work out.

It is wrong that you think I feel persecuted, I don't even no where that comes from.

The gun's ubiquity does increase the instance of gunfire. You are in deep denial.

How am I playing the victim?

A socialist? Interesting and you check all the right-wing boxes. Well, I guess Nazis called themselves socialist too, so you don't have to be progressive to be socialist.

Elitism? I was describing the demographic that most often gets shot. How is that elitist? I don't happen to be a member of that demographic and don't have a gun in the house so statistically there is very little chance I will be involved in gun play. Studies have shown those feeling they need a gun overestimate the danger to themselves and create more danger for themselves and family members by possessing a gun.

What are the failures of current laws?

Registering all firearms and only allowing ammo sold to registered firearms owners who are legally responsible for that ammo.

Do you live in the real world?

The Dickey Amendment inhibited research in gun violence. That was the aim of the amendment and Dickey later regretted it and thought it bad for the country. All the rationalizations and cherry picking will not change that fact.

 

No doubt they have a God complex and believe they are doing things for our own good but that isn't their purpose.

fair enough I have no idea why you are obsessed with what other people own. I figure it's because you don't like others having power but it could be any other complex I suppose.

Well no I'm not in denial of that. I fire my guns all the time. Gunfire isn't a problem. I go to a place where everybody has a gun and they are all shooting them. Gunfire is very common and almost never causes harm.

You're pretending that you're constantly under threat of being shot

 

You're cherry picking. Thousands of studies have been published. The only way your claim has any validity is if all of those studies are invalid. The CDC has no experts on staff. Bloomberg and Chan have hundreds of millions in funding. Your entire point is a lie.

 

This desire to turn it over to so-called medical or healthcare professionals whatever that means. Things to just be a way to erode people's rights and that's what it's used for seems like it's only purpose.

The CDC stol land from people and the rent moratorium made landlords provide land for the renters without any kind of compensation. They used it to justify placing everyone under house arrest and forbidding commerce.

I think the Dickie amendment this is probably one of the single greatest pieces of legislation in modern times.

The CDC is how a totalitarian regime will take us over that's how it's happened in the past. The Nazi party trick to Germans into believing that Jewish people were dangerous and unsafe and they seem to allow the Holocaust to happen because of it.

 

Well that will prevent people who are interested in obeying the law from buying/selling untracked firearms... but why are you targetting them? Isn't it those with criminal intent we should be trying to stop? What you propose will not deter people who arent interested in obeying the law.

 

What Edna is proposing would be a violation of FOPA. so if that compromise is broken we should be allowed to own machine guns manufactured after 1986

 

Can you point out those right wing boxes? Can you define the term “socialism” please so I know where I need to start your education on that subject. I’m actually very progressive as well. You are taking the conservative position here. You think you are progressive but actually are advocating for population control methods that have been used for millennium—thus conservative. I’m advocating for methods and policies that are novel—thus progressive.

Nazis were more “socialist” than modern progressives. Modern progressives don’t have the personal responsibility to be at all socialist.

You just again claimed you are unlikely to be a victim of crime. Then you again claimed other demographics MUCH more at risk from crime overestimate a risk you have assets to avoid. You wish to use your “better” position to not only critique other demographics you have no social connection with, you seem to believe you can make better decisions for them than they can make for themselves. That’s as elitist as one can get. It’s textbook elitism.

I specifically pointed the failure out in my previous post. A small demographic is REPEATEDLY committing gun crimes and serving three year sentences, then being released to offend again—at recidivism rates higher than for ANY other crime. Current law is allowing a very small demographic to commit the vast majority of gun crimes, then blaming law abiding citizens for that crime. You can’t see the problem in that?

 

So you are saying the FAA that ensures flight safety and the FDA that ensures drug safety are unnecessary are just in it because they want "control and authority".....more fringe.

You've said you don't care about society so maybe you cannot understand people who want to make society better. You try to assign motives to them like, they feel persecuted or think they believe others have power over them, that are just not there.

So guns do increase the instance of gunfire, but not all of that gunfire is in a controlled environment.

I have said repeatedly, I don't feel "constantly under threat of being shot", with my demographic and the fact that I don't have a gun in the house gives me a very low probability I would be involved in gunfire. It is the gun toters who fear being shot.
You got nothing.

So your stance is the Dickey Amendment did nothing and the experts on the subject are lying...Okay.

That's the same old argument. Why have a law if people won't obey it? What law must be obeyed?

It will prevent the undocumented from obtaining ammunition.

I suspect you have unique definitions of socialism and elitism.

There is not a right-winger on here that would disagree with these right-wing boxes you checked and there are a lot:

People who want more gun control "fear" guns.
Progressives have damaged the "social order"
Progressives have destroyed the family unit".
Progressive policies haven't eliminated crime.
social programs have exacerbated the crime problem.
Taxes that support law enforcement hasn’t worked to protect innocents from criminals.
The ones you wish to violate the rights of differ from you
We need to increase jail time to keep these people off the street.
Progressives lack personal responsibility.

Then you say you're progressive? Do you have a unique definition of that word too?

And then you misunderstood what I wrote. I had described the demographic that was most likely to get shot and then I described my demographic, followed by your demographic and then you go on about elitism. If you disagree with someone's decisions does that make you an elitist by your unique definition?

You go on to complain about recidivism rates. What would a good progressive do about that? Well it costs around $20,000 dollars a year to keep someone in jail and we have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. Maybe we could do something different with that money like, better drug and alcohol treatment, decriminalize drugs, make technical school a condition of parole. After felons have served their time they can't get a job, rent an apartment or get a loan because of a box they have to check making them go back to what they know.

 

You're displaying weapons grade cognitive dissonance here. Dickey didn't prevent studies by either the CDC or the DOJ; I've given you post-Dickey examples of both. I've given you links to hundreds of studies by those very experts you quote, so yes, they're obviously lying. It's hypocritical to complain about NRA repression, lack of data and lack of funding when you publish over a hundred studies while you work for a School of Public Health with an $350M endowment at a university with a $82B endowment.

Who would actually conduct studies for the CDC? They don't have any subject matter experts on staff.

What would the CDC study that hasn't been studied in the thousands of studies by your experts already?

And again, if it is necessary for the CDC to study gun violence so we know what new laws we need, why are the Democrats pushing for laws not support by science? Either we need CDC studies or the laws they want aren't scientifically based or "common sense". They're lying to us about something.

 

No, I use the actual definitions. Here they are so you know.

Socialism:

Elitist:

Do you disagree? If so, on what basis?

I stated this in response to your statement people own guns out of fear. I specifically stated neither gun owners or anti gunners support security of their person out of fear. I used numerous examples to show you fear and active concern are not the same.

I think it’s pretty universally accepted eugenics damages social order. Not a right wing box. As did prohibition (alcohol), not only at the time, but in setting precedent for the war on drugs.

Policies equated with modern progressivism have destroy the family unit. Just a fact.

Just a fact. Modern conservative policies haven’t really either. The war on drugs being one example. Modern progressive policy on policing in the recent past has increased crime.

True. Not a right wing box, just a fact. Current US social programs are designed to keep people in poverty that breeds crime. True progressives would work to reduce poverty—especially generational poverty.

Not a right wing box. BLM is not a right wing organization and they check this box.

Again, just a fact. Facts are not right wing or left wing—they are just facts. Your position on firearms is elitist by definition.

False. I’ve never made that statement. Increasing jail time is virtually useless at preventing crime.

Just a fact. Modern progressivism is based on government driving change, not the individual. Not a right wing box. It’s a stated objective by the House Progressive Caucus.

So we see facts are not right wing. They are just facts.

No. The below universally accepted definition fits me.

Do you accept this definition?

You don’t just disagree. You think you know other people’s risk better than they know their own. You use your perception of risk to state people who have to live by crack houses or meth labs overestimate their risk. You use your perception to state people without access to law enforcement services you have at hand overstate their risk. It’s textbook elitism because you are using your position of privilege in an attempt to control others for their “own good”.

It’s fascinating you can’t define simple terms like socialism or elitism when prompted. Fascinating.

We have a high prison population because we punish massive ammounts of victimless crime. Yes, ending the war on drugs is a GREAT start. But you are just advocating for new tactics in a continued war on drugs. You are actually a conservative because you wish to continue the war under a different name. The antagonist and protagonist remain the same. The goal of getting people to conform to the will of government is the same. You just wish to try carrots more than sticks. But control is still the goal and government is still the vehicle to control. Thus, your approach is conservative, not liberal or progressive.

What’s really interesting is as a claimed progressive you think controlling firearms is helpful. That is not liberalism which is the foundation of true progressivism. And the above carrot government control mechanisms you propose (and firearm control) are by definition conservative positions because government has been doing these things for millennia. You think taxing and then spending that tax to shape society to advantage the elite is progressive? It’s as old as time—thus conservative.[/QUOTE]

 

This is what people say when they set up a strawman.

I'm saying precisely what I typed you don't need to misrepresent it

I can't. Further I'm not a megalomaniac.

If you only control the people that do it in the right place because they are the only ones you can control it doesn't do any good.

Then quit crying about it

This is like do you're saying...