Talk Already Starting About Gun Control

reply to post by beezzer

Good morning' Beez. It should make you feel better knowing my son just inherited his first gun from me. Another armed citizen!!

How he got it home without having it confiscated is a minor miracle.

Snarl
reply to post by beezzer

 

Good morning' Beez. It should make you feel better knowing my son just inherited his first gun from me. Another armed citizen!!

How he got it home without having it confiscated is a minor miracle.

That's awesome! Congrats to your son!

reply to post by rickm


Is this intelligent enough for you, or is intelligent only when the source being quoted agrees with your already held views?

Analyzing FBI crime statistics data from 1977 to 1993, Lott found that “By adopting shall-issue [concealed carry permit] laws, states reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent.” If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, Lott says, “citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies.” His conclusion in that study: 1) Victims who have the ability to defend themselves offer a legitimate deterrence threat and 2) “Criminals…respond rationally to deterrence threats.”

More Guns Less Crime

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics)

reply to post by rickm

any 'evidence' shown has been by obviously biased sources.

The CDC is a biased source?

what is odd is the ignorance of people on here who whine that any gun restrictions are an infringement on gun rights, then they turn around and agree that violent felons and mentally disabled should not have guns.

Actually if you read there's a mini discussion amongst us here as to the constitutionality of depriving those rights after serving the penalties of committing a felony after due process. From what I gather, too, is that most are in favor of not having permanent restrictions. What are you on?

nobody has shown me that as of yet.

Ahem, two people have.

i have never ever said i want to outlaw guns for people who can legally have them and use them safely

Reading comprehension much? I said and you quoted "But then you've stated you think firearms ought not be illegal for normal citizens..."

i want to keep people with mental problems from getting them. keep criminals from getting them.
there are ways to make sure law abiding citizens can get guns legally and keep those who shouldn't have them from getting them.

Really? Show me where that has been effective. It has been tried in the US ya know. Look it up, you will find your opinion is not supported by fact.

show me something like a study from harvard, you know, smart people who study things like this for a living.

So the FBI, CDC, DOJ, BJS, Census Bureau aren't credible sources? You want me to trust a faculty member from a school that was the third largest donor to both the 2008 and 2012 Obama presidential campaigns and think it's not biased? Look it up, they spent more than even Citi, and that's quite a feat. Only outspent by Goldman Sachs and University of California.

You keep repeating your position, which is that it is easy for anyone to get firearms. Like the straw man stats. I and many here AGREE. That stuff does indeed happen. I don't know how much more you can talk past us on this. The point that most people on this thread are making is we want you to prove to us that legislation will change anything. Because legislation has been tried at the state and municipal level with almost zero positive effect and in many cases a huge negative effect. You want to legislate against the bill of rights, the burden of proof is on you. The access to firearms is just one slider on the societal equalizer. The other sliders, diversity demographics, economic demographics, and IQ demographics are still set to maximum in areas where firearm related murder is highest. Equalize those and you'll find that much like in other countries, it's not merely the access to firearms, but the blend. You'll also find that access to firearms is the least effectual "slider". Look at the country as a system, not as an isolated linear interaction.

Meanwhile, me not proving anything? Really? There's no convincing the indoctrinated. This is what I want to happen to you. I want you to triumph in a life or death situation in a foreign country where your wits and a little bit of luck pull you through, then come back to this thread. I think you would really have a different opinion and really appreciate what we're trying to maintain here.

rickm
reply to post by macman

 

felons, the mentally unstable, and those not mature enough to handle them.

easy

Not mature enough??? Geez, and I guess you get to decide that. How very elitist of you.

You really look down your nose at others.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


too funny
you post a biased article from some non-known website?

too funny.

reply to post by macman


sorry, i want to protect people, and stop mass shootings unlike you

reply to post by Galvatron


you have not posted from those sources.
the articles posted here have been from 2nd hand sources who cherry pick information
typical of pro gun people. lies to get their own way

just like wayne lapierre who has a gun...but he had mental problems to get out of viet nam.

reply to post by rickm


If you have never heard of John Lott you have no business entering into a gun debate. That is like entering a debate on atheism never having heard of Dawkins, or discussing physics never having heard of Newton.


"John Richard Lott Jr. (born May 8, 1958) is an American economist and political commentator. Lott was formerly employed at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the American Enterprise Institute conservative think tank"

I linked you to more than a website who was discussing his work, I also linked you to his book. Your comment shows you have nothing, you have no counter argument. When people have no argument they usually resort to ridicule, as you just did. As if you are so superior to John Lott. I am sure John Lott would be happy to compare degrees with you at ANY time.

reply to post by rickm


Wait a minute...I thought you were pro gun. I've said this before to you, I think in another thread. I'm not going to hold your hand and do work for you. I will, however, point you in the right direction. Do you want page number and a key on how to interpret the data presented? If I link the government document .pdf from the associated agency's own website, you're obliged to read it if you intend to dismiss it. You can't just dismiss it saying "well you didn't cite from it". And yes, the numbers i've talked about are from the CDC document.

I'm this close *pinches fingers* to thinking you're just a troll.

rickm
reply to post by dazbog

 

sorry, but the federalist papers are a series of essays.
they are beliefs used in forming the this country...but not ratified by the first congress.

" The Federalist Papers are a series of essays " REALLY ? LOL
Don't be sorry Rick. Simple bring something to the conversation worthy of consideration other
then sophomoric one liners . I suspect / know you are out of your league. However, you are quite adept
at hi-jacking a thread. Congratulation.

reply to post by rickm

Yeah, because I stated as such.


And new laws will stop criminals from performing criminal actions.

Again, how are those current gun laws working in places like NY, Chicago, DC and LA?

You keep on being emotional, it suits you.