Firearms Experts Debunk Conservative Media's Favorite Gun Talking Points

originally posted by: Ironhawke
I love how OP stated he did not want to take guns away...and that becomes the battle cry of everyone else. This is why gun rights debates go nowhere..strawmanning and false dichotomies everywhere....

I love how a anti-gunner posts anti-gun propaganda and uses the standard anti-gun strategy of telling everyone that they don't really oppose people owning guns.
I love it even more when another anti-gunner comes along and belittles anyone that doesn't swallow the initial lies put forth.
False dichotomy? Maybe.
The fact of the matter is that there are people out there that lie in order to bait people in.
Here is a false dichotomy in this thread from an anti: as post
Before you reply, please remember that Sheila Jackson Lee had a BS from Yale and a JD from the University of VA.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Sorry, but every article I have read that your article tries to negate have always cited statistics, studies, and experts.

Playing the my-experts-are-better-than-your-experts game gets everyone nowhere. Reading both sides and employing constructive criticism of the arguments can yield nice results, though.

Plus, I don't care about any of the talking points from either side--it's my right to own and carry a firearm and I want to, so I do. It's not based on studies or stats or anything. My decision is based on the fact that I'm well-trained in both funtion and safety of firearms and I never want to have to use one against another human being (but I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it).

The media and the memes can keep their talking points.

a reply to: CB328

So we should distrust all educated people and instead trust people with no education or qualifications instead?!

"There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Benjamin Disraeli

people take numbers and make them lie all the time. they can take legitimate numbers and make them support their claims and make them say things that aren't true.

when dealing with statistics, follow the carrier and views of the authors. there you will find the true answers.

Finally, you need to examine statistics to determine what are the comparisons being drawn and are they relevant and valid. For example, say your topic is gun control. You could find statistics on murder rates with handguns per capita in New York City, London and Tokyo. Such statistics would show much higher rates in New York than the other two cities. It would therefore appear that gun control is a good idea since guns are controlled in London and Tokyo. However, such statistics must be suspect, not because they are wrong (more people are indeed murdered with handguns in New York City than in London or Tokyo), but because they don't tell the whole story.
The Problems with Statistics

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Yep. First lesson on the first day in Media Stats Class -- You can make a number to say anything you want.

No joke!

I'm still waiting for the OP to address my questions:

If the availability of guns correlates directly to the homicide rate, why is the U.S. 91st on the list of intentional homicide rates by country when the U.S. has nearly 4 times more privately-owned firearms than any other nation?

If the availability of guns correlates directly to the suicide rate, why is the U.S. 30th on the list of suicide rates by country when several of the countries higher on that list have virtually zero privately-owned firearms?

Could it be that you actually don't know what the hell you're talking about and you just believe whatever biased nonsense supports your opinion?

It's telling that when the statistics are mentioned by the anti-gun crowd, they always say "Homicide committed with guns" and "suicide committed with guns." Of course if the U.S. has the most guns, it will have the highest rates of homicide and suicide with guns but that's not the whole picture, is it? Homicide and suicide taken as a whole reveal a much different result when the method is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Answer
I'm still waiting for the OP to address my questions:

If the availability of guns correlates directly to the homicide rate, why is the U.S. 91st on the list of intentional homicide rates by country when the U.S. has nearly 4 times more privately-owned firearms than any other nation?

If the availability of guns correlates directly to the suicide rate, why is the U.S. 30th on the list of suicide rates by country when several of the countries higher on that list have virtually zero privately-owned firearms?

Could it be that you actually don't know what the hell you're talking about and you just believe whatever biased nonsense supports your opinion?

Yeah....I am still waiting for an explanation on why the OP deliberately misrepresented the facts from the actual Harvard study.

Somehow I think we will both never get an answer.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Onslaught2996

.......Harvard researchers are gun experts?

Im sorry how does that equate?

Yes im sure this thread is right on point........

More conservative hate from a "tolerant" progressive liberal.......

When someone needs to prop up their agenda, all kinda of people become experts.

Their are "experts" on both sides of any "agenda", but I like to leave the
rhetoric to the talking heads, but what I do is look at results.

If you look at the results of nations that did gun confiscation, most of those
ended with the mass murder of millions of the population.

Mao, Polpot, Stalin, Hitler, etc etc...

In just the past 100 years "outside of war" 262 million sheeple were killed
directly or indirectly by their government.

Democide - 262 million dead at the hands of their own government outside of war

Alot of the killings are not recognized by puppetized operation mockingbird
media, such as Terrence Yeakey, Pat Tillman, and Michael Hastings.

Others are too big to hide like JFK, RFK, and MLK.

This simple documented historical fact will still be argued by people
that are either paid posters working for the disinfo teams, or by
people who are totally brainwashed.

Former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov warned of all this coming,
and it has gone largely ignored.

Those who did see it for what it was have been demonized and
marginalized as kooks and conspiracy theorists.

Once people realize the mainstream media has been hijacked
and it came out in congressional testimony etc etc, then there
was a precedent set and active disinfo was openly exposed.

Operation Mockingbird - subversion of the US media

After what was done to Michael Hastings its pretty easy to
see why they go along with the Psyop, and I can't really blame them.

My plans are as always to get out of the way of the event when
the so called purge happens here in the US, and why for years
I have said the cities will not be safe, and thus why they take
efforts to try to incentivize moving to the cities and depopulate
the rural areas.

Agenda 21 is real, but is always covered under other names like
sustainability which in its true form I do support, but not in the
globalist thug form.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Answer
I'm still waiting for the OP to address my questions:

If the availability of guns correlates directly to the homicide rate, why is the U.S. 91st on the list of intentional homicide rates by country when the U.S. has nearly 4 times more privately-owned firearms than any other nation?

If the availability of guns correlates directly to the suicide rate, why is the U.S. 30th on the list of suicide rates by country when several of the countries higher on that list have virtually zero privately-owned firearms?

Could it be that you actually don't know what the hell you're talking about and you just believe whatever biased nonsense supports your opinion?

Yeah....I am still waiting for an explanation on why the OP deliberately misrepresented the facts from the actual Harvard study.

Somehow I think we will both never get an answer.

Disinfo is one of the main tools of the paid bloggers working for
the various alphabet agencies.

Alot of that came out with wikileaks, and other whistleblowers
over the years, much like the actors hired to act like parents
at sandy hook were exposed.

They'd be caught on camera laughing it up having a good time,
and with nary a tear in sight, then when the footage for the
news spot was shot they totally transform into a teary eyed
sobbing emotional wreck, thus they are actors.

These disinfo clowns are literally "manufacturing consent" as
Chomsky so eloquently put in his film of the same name.

These are the active elements of the Operation Mockingbird media,
and work for the people mentioned by Bernays in his book Propaganda.

I can still tell die hard FOX news folks about the reporters fired for
trying to tell the truth about GMO and Monsanto and even with all
the evidence and videos of them speaking about it some still refuse
to consider FOX news is compromised, just like the rest of the government.

Even though most nations around the world have started banning GMO.

The brainwashing is strong, and I was a victim of it as well, in the
distant past, but 9-11 changed all that.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

I want guns in the hands of the rational people.

Like who? Give us an example of a "rational" and responsible firearm possessor.

If you think agents of the state are rational people, then by your own qualifications you should never have a gun.

So who, then? Who are the "rational people" of which you speak?

I think the rational people he is referring to are the secret service in
DC that shot that woman to death who accidently got too close to the
whitehouse because she was lost, and they decided to blow her away
with her child in the car because a single women in her SUV is a threat
to national security and must be shot to death on the whitehouse grounds.

I can see shooting the radiator til the cars engine stops, I can see shooting the
tires, but not the woman in the car.

We have other instances where people were handcuffed and had cops
sitting on them and then shot dead in the back out in California and it
triggered riots.

We have other unarmed citizens blown away by the cops fairly often.

Oddly national media only seems to cover when its a white cop
killing a black man though. There are some instances of white cop
on white person, and black cop on black person, etc etc...

This group of "rational" people doesn't appear to be rational, and act much
like other members of historical police states.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
While I will agree that MM and mother jones is bias. Harvard did a study in 07 that would go against this so seems they aren't as bad as some think.

Its not that harvard is bad, or guns are bad, they are objects.

The bad things are done by people, and before guns, people were
killed by other means.

At this time the preferred weapon is the gun, and the lefties
with armed bodyguards want to disarm the sheeple because
they plan to do like all other police states in history.

The main reason to distrust people from Harvard would be the
$350 million donation to produce biased support for an agenda.

So at this evaluation corruption leads to lies, and I think we
can see that in DC and Wallstreet all too well.

I don't get the big idea with some people equating such gun control measures as background checks as keeping guns out of good law abiding people's hands. If you're not a diagnosed nut case with a criminal record, then you should be fine. Now granted the system is not perfect and such people do get their hands on guns. That just means the system needs tweeking to be more effective.
Someone said it best when they found it humorous that white collar criminals show hypocrisy by condemning gun ownership by blue collar criminals. I also think it's hypocritical that it's ok to have rural areas armed to the teeth yet there is a problem with guns in urban areas. Especially assault rifles, automatic weapons, and hollow point rounds. That's pretty much presuming that such guns and ammo will automatically be used for criminal purposes in urban areas but not rural areas.
A final point I have to make is that arming everyone does not always make everyone a Dudley DoRight police officer. The individual's mindset plays a crucial factor as to the decision making they employ to use the gun. If the person has prejudices towards certain people then they'll be more trigger happy. A good example is the case in Florida where an encounter between an armed man and a car full of unarmed black teenagers turned deadly.

originally posted by: chibistevie
I don't get the big idea with some people equating such gun control measures as background checks as keeping guns out of good law abiding people's hands. If you're not a diagnosed nut case with a criminal record, then you should be fine. Now granted the system is not perfect and such people do get their hands on guns. That just means the system needs tweeking to be more effective.

Many of the "diagnosed nut cases" have killed a family member and taken their gun. Which law do you propose to stop that?

Criminals, by definition, ignore the law. Which law do you propose to stop them from getting guns? They already can't buy from a licensed dealer.

Dealers already conduct background checks... so what exactly are you proposing?

Someone said it best when they found it humorous that white collar criminals show hypocrisy by condemning gun ownership by blue collar criminals. I also think it's hypocritical that it's ok to have rural areas armed to the teeth yet there is a problem with guns in urban areas.

Yeah, there's a problem with crime in urban areas. Most of those urban areas have laws against guns already on the books.

Especially assault rifles, automatic weapons, and hollow point rounds. That's pretty much presuming that such guns and ammo will automatically be used for criminal purposes in urban areas but not rural areas.

"Assault rifles" are used to commit about 0.6% of firearm-related crime. "Automatic weapons" turn up so rarely that it's not even statistically measurable. Hollow-point bullets are nothing special... don't buy into the media hype.

You need to do some fact-checking.

If the person has prejudices towards certain people then they'll be more trigger happy. A good example is the case in Florida where an encounter between an armed man and a car full of unarmed black teenagers turned deadly.

There are more handgun permit holders nationwide than at any time in the history of the United States. Your opinion and reality are not aligned.

The reason gun owners are against further restrictions is because uninformed, misinformed, and/or agenda-driven ignoramuses are the ones pushing for it. Nearly every piece of data used against guns is fabricated and untruthful.

No one is able to present a solid factual argument that guns are a problem and, furthermore, no one is able to demonstrate how to effectively curb crime by passing more laws against guns. The U.S. has a crime problem, not a gun problem. There are plenty of nations with a high rate of gun-ownership that also have a very low crime rate.

a reply to: Answer
You make all good points. I would like to argue about crime being a problem in urban areas but not non urban areas. When a tragic shooting happens in these non urban areas then there is a problem. Mass media does sensationalize it exponentially given where it occurred.
There need to be some measures taken to minimize those who are unsuitable to possess firearms to not be able to obtain then LEGALLY. There is only so much(as in little) that we can do about the illegal acquisition of firearms. Alcohol is illegal to be consumed by those under 21. Alcohol consumption by people under 21 still occurs but that does not mean it doesn't discourage some people under 21 from purchasing and/or consuming it. There is no magic wonder fix but something is better than nothing at all.

originally posted by: chibistevie
a reply to: Answer
You make all good points. I would like to argue about crime being a problem in urban areas but not non urban areas. When a tragic shooting happens in these non urban areas then there is a problem. Mass media does sensationalize it exponentially given where it occurred.
There need to be some measures taken to minimize those who are unsuitable to possess firearms to not be able to obtain then LEGALLY. There is only so much(as in little) that we can do about the illegal acquisition of firearms. Alcohol is illegal to be consumed by those under 21. Alcohol consumption by people under 21 still occurs but that does not mean it doesn't discourage some people under 21 from purchasing and/or consuming it. There is no magic wonder fix but something is better than nothing at all.

There are already measures in place to minimize the ability of those who are unsuitable to possess firearms from obtaining them legally.

The anti-gun lobby has somehow convinced people that anyone can walk into a gun store and buy a gun without any sort of check. I'm a licensed firearm dealer... it's not true.

Everyone purchasing a firearm from a dealer has to fill out paperwork and submit to an FBI background check. One of the questions on the paperwork is "have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" Anyone who answers yes to that question is immediately denied.

In the vast majority of states that issue concealed carry permits, a person must submit fingerprints and a photograph for a full FBI background check. Most states also require a class and the fees are typically from $150-$200 for the license and another $50-$200 for the class. The typical turn-around time for carry permits is 90 days in most states.

Just because I mentioned crime in urban areas does not mean I was ignoring crime in rural areas.

Again, every point brought up against guns is not based in fact. I'm not blaming you... you've just been fed a lot of bogus data.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
New Harvard Research Reveals How Conservative Media Infects The National Conversation On Guns

This is classic. "Infects" the national conversation. LOL

These dumb bastards love to have "conversations" minus the advocates. They are head full of crap dumbasses. Seriously. I mean that. Light on no one home and the rest of us are not supposed to notice. In fact considering the majority of americans agree with most of the gun advocate positions....we are simply brainwashed and infected. LOL.

Is this the same Harvard that allows armed guards stationed around the buildings occupied by the offspring of rich Saudis?
I had a friend who did her PhD at Harvard several years ago. When she got there and was looking for an apartment her Department head suggested that she look at one specific on-campus apartment building because a Saudi prince lived there and had 16 armed guards on site at all times. She felt very safe in that building but when she inquired as to how to gain a permit to carry a weapon whilst walking about the campus, she was told that students weren't allowed to have guns----only hired body guards.

Experts???? Experts!!!???


Harvard!!???? Harvard Experts???!!

Are these not some of the guys who have been thinking up ways to balance the budget for the last 40 plus years??

And they are experts on guns and gun violence??

Have they made any difference in either the budget or violence???


Whenever I hear the word.... "Expert/Experts" my alarm bells go off and my radar comes on line to look closer...warning bells activate. Particularly College experts!! Particularly Harvard college experts.


Orangetom

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Only study in regards to gun violence that matters to me:
Study: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

The second amendment was not intended for self defense and hunting. It is entirely about overthrowing tyrannical and nefarious oligarchy.

Why is there violence in some places and not others?

There are places in the world in which there are very few guns among the population, and relatively little violence, such as Japan. Switzerland has many guns and very little violence as well. The USA has hoards of fire arms, especially down here in the south. And folks out in the country are really agitated and just praying for a reason.

Doesn't it seem like it is poverty and uneducation are the main vectors of violent tendency generation?