Dana NRA comment
YMMV wrote:
Her best point: The government can't protect you, but now it's time give up your guns.
Dana NRA comment
YMMV wrote:
Her best point: The government can't protect you, but now it's time give up your guns.
Jerry Maguire wrote:
I'd gladly handover (buy back program) my semi-automatic handgun. I'll keep my .38 revolver, 12 gauge, and .270 Winchester.
You feel strong enough about it that you would sell your gun but not so much that you would hand it over for free. That's some serious commitment.
ban long distance running
There is no bigger producer of lonely skinny white boys than long distance running.
Letsrun shows that these people are also unnaturally obsessed with guns and being overlooked by women
Do the math
moose lake wrote:
Anyway, my own thoughts on this are yes, make manufacturing of semi-auto weapons illegal. Those currently in circulation can be bought back voluntarily for roughly the value of the gun. Those that wish to keep their guns must go through the same process as those that wish to possess full auto weapons. That's a stringent FBI background check and the local police are notified that you have the gun(s) among other requirements. Those that fail the background check are also compensated. Since 1986 when this legislation was passed regarding full autos not a single mass shooting has taken place using one. Also, rifles and shotguns can be purchased at age 18, handguns at 25 and semi and full auto at age 30.
I generally agree with this. But throw in banning large capacity magazines too.
John Utah wrote:
Labeling it "fear mongering" is ....
....correct
celery wrote:
Jerry Maguire wrote:
You are a full blown idiot. But i'll play your game of posting articles.
Here is some about the creator of all your pro gun statistics... Total garbage.
Lott’s data and honesty have been repeatedly called into question by other academics. In one case, he claimed to have done a survey that found in 98 percent of cases when a weapon is used in self-defense, it was only brandished and not fired. When other academics asked for his data, Lott claimed he lost it as the result of a catastrophic hard drive crash.
In a personally embarrassing moment, Lott was also revealed to have created an online sock puppet, Mary Rosh, who wrote positive Amazon reviews of More Guns, Less Crime exhorting, “Save your life—read this book.” Lott also used Rosh to defend himself against critics, writing messages online purportedly from her. (“YOU ARE AMAZINGLY DISHONEST. HAVE YOU ABSOLUTELY NO SHAME?” read one online comment from “Mary.”)
https://www.thenation.com/article/who-is-behind-the-lie-that-more-guns-makes-us-safe/Of course Jon Lott has an opinion on this topic. So do you. Would it be a good argument if I said, "your opinion is not reliable because you have an opinion?"
What matters is the data sited in the articles. My articles have links to official statistic gathering organizations such as the FBI, etc. Your article has links to other news/opinion articles.
I'm done interacting with you on this topic.
Lott has an opinion because he crunched the numbers and came to a conclusion, supported by the data. Unlike most pundits who's opinion is ruled by emotion and partisanship. The left may not like his opinion, but the data is hard to discredit. He also holds a PhD and originally set out to show that firearm related deaths were directly attributable to more firearms. He found that the inverse was true, particularly when the firearms were in the hands of law abiding citizens.
Of course Jon Lott has an opinion on this topic. So do you. Would it be a good argument if I said, "your opinion is not reliable because you have an opinion?"
What matters is the data sited in the articles. My articles have links to official statistic gathering organizations such as the FBI, etc. Your article has links to other news/opinion articles.
I'm done interacting with you on this topic.[/quote]
Manipulating, cherry picking, and outright creating false data is not an opinion. That is called LYING.
That's because you have no concrete basis for debating your stance. BYE, get back to Facebook and your memes.
Lott has an opinion because he crunched the numbers and came to a conclusion, supported by the data. Unlike most pundits who's opinion is ruled by emotion and partisanship. The left may not like his opinion, but the data is hard to discredit. He also holds a PhD and originally set out to show that firearm related deaths were directly attributable to more firearms. He found that the inverse was true, particularly when the firearms were in the hands of law abiding citizens.[/quote]
He cannot prove the numbers, will not show his data to other academics as he says he "lost them", he as been proven wrong multiple times by truly independent organizations. Crime Research is a Think Tank developed by him and the NRA to spin a narrative. MORON. Cherry picking, manipulating data, outright making data up. Disgusting.
You've been duped and are too proud to go check for yourself. You refuse to even question the crazy crap Lott and that site ay because it first YOUR narrative. Propaganda drivel.
Jerry Maguire wrote:
Of course Jon Lott has an opinion on this topic. So do you. Would it be a good argument if I said, "your opinion is not reliable because you have an opinion?"
What matters is the data sited in the articles. My articles have links to official statistic gathering organizations such as the FBI, etc. Your article has links to other news/opinion articles.
I'm done interacting with you on this topic.
Manipulating, cherry picking, and outright creating false data is not an opinion. That is called LYING.
That's because you have no concrete basis for debating your stance. BYE, get back to Facebook and your memes.[/quote]
Academics are like little girls, publish something they don't agree with and they throw a temper tantrum and bully you to the point you end up with an eating disorder. Attack your data sources, accuse you of manufacturing the data, and on and on and on. I've been in that world, and know all the tricks. I know yours, too. Also, I wasn't the one that you responded to just decided to reply on their behalf.
Jerry Maguire wrote:
Lott has an opinion because he crunched the numbers and came to a conclusion, supported by the data. Unlike most pundits who's opinion is ruled by emotion and partisanship. The left may not like his opinion, but the data is hard to discredit. He also holds a PhD and originally set out to show that firearm related deaths were directly attributable to more firearms. He found that the inverse was true, particularly when the firearms were in the hands of law abiding citizens.
He cannot prove the numbers, will not show his data to other academics as he says he "lost them", he as been proven wrong multiple times by truly independent organizations. Crime Research is a Think Tank developed by him and the NRA to spin a narrative. MORON. Cherry picking, manipulating data, outright making data up. Disgusting.
You've been duped and are too proud to go check for yourself. You refuse to even question the crazy crap Lott and that site ay because it first YOUR narrative. Propaganda drivel.[/quote]
By the way, when you decide to get rid of those semi auto's you own, let me know. I'll be happy to take them off your hands. While I know that you know you can't send them to me directly through the mail, I'll send you the FFL number of the local dealer near where I live. All you have to do is drop them off at your local federally licensed gun shop, fill out some federal paperwork and they will ship them to mine. I'll pay for both transfers.
I think something that has been discussed, but not really broken done is the conversation about the other variables in play here (regarding mass shootings). If we look at this table of deaths in mass shootings it is clear that there has been an uptick in the number of deaths, but I don't think that the weapon used is the sole reason. I mean, why then weren't there many more deaths prior to the Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004)? I read evidence that "In 1994, only a handful of companies were manufacturing AR-15 type rifles. However, by the twenty first century the number of AR-15 style rifles had more than doubled.", so maybe that is the primary reason, but there seems to be something rooted in psychology at work here. I think the advent of social media and how pervasive it is/has become surely has played a role in motivating some killers to try and "one up" each other as they know their action will put them on some sort of pedestal. Something on a socio-cultural level has changed in the last decade that has seemed to motivated more kids to perform these heinous acts. Sure, access to a weapon whose production has increased has undoubtedly played a role (especially when these kids refer to other shootings as a reference point and see the weapons used). However, are kids really more "murderous" now then they were 2 decades ago? Are kids being bullied more now then they were in the 80s? Does parental guidance at home play a role and has it dropped off in the last decade (assuming that parental intervention serves as a deterrent).
Link to the table:
RandoCalrissian wrote:
I think something that has been discussed, but not really broken done is the conversation about the other variables in play here (regarding mass shootings). If we look at this table of deaths in mass shootings it is clear that there has been an uptick in the number of deaths, but I don't think that the weapon used is the sole reason. I mean, why then weren't there many more deaths prior to the Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004)? I read evidence that "In 1994, only a handful of companies were manufacturing AR-15 type rifles. However, by the twenty first century the number of AR-15 style rifles had more than doubled.", so maybe that is the primary reason, but there seems to be something rooted in psychology at work here. I think the advent of social media and how pervasive it is/has become surely has played a role in motivating some killers to try and "one up" each other as they know their action will put them on some sort of pedestal. Something on a socio-cultural level has changed in the last decade that has seemed to motivated more kids to perform these heinous acts. Sure, access to a weapon whose production has increased has undoubtedly played a role (especially when these kids refer to other shootings as a reference point and see the weapons used). However, are kids really more "murderous" now then they were 2 decades ago? Are kids being bullied more now then they were in the 80s? Does parental guidance at home play a role and has it dropped off in the last decade (assuming that parental intervention serves as a deterrent).
Link to the table:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#/media/File:Total_US_deaths_by_year_in_spree_shootings_1982%E2%80%932018_(ongoing).svg
Its tough to come up with one reason..............as at least in my opinion, the issue is multi factorial. The advent of social media, the glorification of firearm related violence, lack of two parent homes, privacy laws that don't allow identification of people at risk of harming others, bullying at school and online all probably play a role. There are probably many others as well. Add the availability of a weapon (any weapon), whether legally obtained or not and the kid who many years ago might have just gotten into a school yard fight now becomes a killer. And perhaps a mass killer if the appropriate safeguards aren't in place and LE does not do their job. All need to be explored. When I was growing up, I hunted from the time I was 10 years old, with my fathers .22. He mentored me. Gun safety was taught in my HS by the local Police Chief, an NRA instructor. We all grew up respecting firearms and what could do. We had a HS rifle team. There were few if any mass killings. My how things have changed.
This argument just comes down to the simple point of why aren't the general public allowed machine guns, RPGs, grenade launchers or attack helicopters?
If you agree that restriction of those certain types of firearms does not violate the 2nd amendment then there is no reason you cannot simply expand existing rules to ban everything that isn't a bolt action .22LR.
John Utah wrote:
You could not be more wrong. Just flat out wrong. Countless elected officials (including HR Clinton) on the left have publicly stated that their official long term position/goal/ideal is the de facto elimination of gun ownership in the USA modeled after any number of countries in the world. It's a long list. That's reality.
Just pick a country....Japan: "Citizens are permitted to possess firearms for hunting and sport shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure. After ten years of shotgun ownership, a licence-holder may apply to obtain a rifle." This is reality and this is the goal for very powerful people and organizations on the left. You act like this is some bizarre scenario. It exists for countless countries, most countries in fact. Folks on the left desire this model for our country. Labeling it "fear mongering" is absurd, ignorant, but more likely just plain disingenuous. We live in a democracy. Folks on the left can fight and vote for what they want. Folks on the right can do the same. We'll see who continues to win.
Japan is a country of over 120 million people that sees on average about 12 gun deaths per year. The United States has a gun death rate that's over 800 times as high. There should be rigid controls on who can possess dangerous weapons that can facilitate the rapid killing of multiple people. It's not sensible to say that every weapon known to man should be made available to the public. Should I be allowed to possess Sarin gas to defend my property? The government has Sarin, why shouldn't I?
Logicality? wrote:
This argument just comes down to the simple point of why aren't the general public allowed machine guns, RPGs, grenade launchers or attack helicopters?
To my knowledge there are no laws prohibiting any of these.
Machine guns: check
RPGs/Grenade launchers: check
Attack helicopters: check
If you like your attack helicopter, you can keep your attack helicopter.
-Obama
Logicality? wrote:
This argument just comes down to the simple point of why aren't the general public allowed machine guns, RPGs, grenade launchers or attack helicopters?
If you agree that restriction of those certain types of firearms does not violate the 2nd amendment then there is no reason you cannot simply expand existing rules to ban everything that isn't a bolt action .22LR.
So its either all or none, eh? What is it with you leftists. Its that kind of "lack of thought" that makes the American firearm owning populace dig their heels in to oppose any regulation whatsoever. How many times have I heard the left say that they "don't want to ban firearms" when in reality, their goal is to do just that. Thanks for making my point, and what you propose will never happen. The reality is that the AR is not used to wage war. All of the above, are. Its not even considered an "assault rifle" as there is no fully automatic mode. Any semi auto rifle, shotgun or handgun has the capability of inflicting comparable damage as an AR. And given that there are millions upon millions of these in circulation, no ban is going to make an iota of difference in anything. But hey if it makes you feel good to pontificate, knock yourself out. Please.
Logicality? wrote:
This argument just comes down to the simple point of why aren't the general public allowed machine guns, RPGs, grenade launchers or attack helicopters?
If you agree that restriction of those certain types of firearms does not violate the 2nd amendment then there is no reason you cannot simply expand existing rules to ban everything that isn't a bolt action .22LR.
Balance and proportionality.
Lol clip? Try harder clown.
Agreed.
Lifeissuffering wrote:
Lol clip? Try harder clown.
Too bad you can't insert a meme with that lame one liner.
.svg){kind=link}