This[W:218]

[JunkyardDogma]

Against the law. And not a Constitutionally protected right. :doh

Exactly. So, when the right goes away so do, legally, the guns. We granted the rights and we can take them away.

 

[JunkyardDogma]

It's obvious you are not here to debate.

Have a good one.

There's no debate when you think a gun is the same as a hammer or a screwdriver.

 

[Lutherf]

There's no debate when you think a gun is the same as a hammer or a screwdriver.

Likewise when you deal with someone who constantly infers that possession of an object implies a certain intent.

 

[JunkyardDogma]

Likewise when you deal with someone who constantly infers that possession of an object implies a certain intent.

A gun was only invented for one reason, and one reason only. If you don't need it for that, you don't need it.

 

[Lutherf]

A gun was only invented for one reason, and one reason only. If you don't need it for that, you don't need it.

The firearm was designed to launch a projectile accurately. That's the ONLY thing it was designed for. Anything beyond that is entirely due to the intent of the individual using the firearm and that includes stopping "bad guys".

 

[Black Dog]

Well number one, we don't have thousands of gun laws:

http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

From your own link...

and an unknown but shrinking number of local laws.

You stand corrected.

And the questions I asked are certainly not rhetorical, obtuse OR vague. If gun laws, as your side describes them are so inhibiting and restrictive, then what would this country look like with no gun laws? Would there be more sophisticated weaponry in our street gangs? Probably. Would weapons be easier to obtain? Probably. Would there be need of such a large black market? Probably not. So, just on the surface, we can see how things would most likely be different without existing laws.

Probably not. I mean anyone can play the speculation game based on nothing. Lets however look at real facts...

Australia, guns banned in 96'. Still had recent mass killing with guns. France, strict gun laws. 130 killed with illegal weapons.

Sorry criminals do not obey laws... This is a fact.

Now before the wide spread availability of guns, the country had nowhere NEAR the rate and intensity of gang violence and mass shootings that we do now. In that respect the problem IS the tool. People's propensity to join gangs and live on the barb wire will never change, but society MUST protect itself from advancements in criminal abilities through weaponry or we all wind up hostages of the 2nd amendment.

Please post proof of this? Because I can show that guns have been readily available since this country's inception. Would have been hard to fight the Revolutionary war without arms for the militia. So please fill us in when guns became widely available in the US?

The fact that these existing gun laws aren't working in your view, only makes them laxidasical and without teeth. Now your problem is two fold: to many guns available for the creeps and not enough enforcement to dissuade the criminal element into thinking of other ways to carry out his or her work...

This is not what I asked or said... Try again, with less straw man this time.

Armed people ARE the problem or there wouldn't be any gun violence in this country at all would there. And police fire their weapons far more often than average citizens, and I can guarantee you that were the firing rates the same, the untrained and muuuch less experienced CCW holders would have an abysmal safety record.

Well unlike you I said law abiding CCW carriers who are the vast majority. So no.

As for your police analogy... that is absolutely not true. A police officer fires their weapon one time a year to qualify. Some departments may require more, most don't. I was a cop, so don't try and blow smoke up my ass about how often police train with their weapons. They fire more than the average citizen, yes... But we are talking about gun owners who tend to shoot.... A lot. A lot more than MOST police and even military personnel.

Hmmm... Your guarantee seems to be worth very little...

It appears that a person is three times safer with a concealed carry permit holder than they are with a police officer.

Attempting to determine how the homicide rate of people with CCW permits compares to that of police officers is not an easy task. There are several sources that show that people with CCW permits are far more law abiding than the general population.

For the data that we have, police appear to be three times as likely to commit murder as a concealed carry permit holder.

If we include all unjustified homicides (suicides were not included) found in Florida by the VPC for CCW holders for the entire four years, the rate is only 27/2,400,713 or 1.125 per 100,000 population per year. This is comparable with the homicide rates in developed western European countries. It is 61% of the rate for police officers for domestic homicides alone. - Police Officers Three Times More Likely to Murder Than Concealed Carry Permit Holders

Comparing conviction rates between police and concealed carry permit holders - Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/wh...public-safety-police-or-carry-permit-holders/

You stand corrected again.

 

[Black Dog]

Exactly. So, when the right goes away so do, legally, the guns. We granted the rights and we can take them away.

But you will not. You can sit there and threaten it all you like but there are as many of us as you so... Not in my lifetime or yours.

 

[Mr Person]

The firearm was designed to launch a projectile accurately. That's the ONLY thing it was designed for.

Oh, come on.

No. If we're going to get this specific, the firearm was invented for the purposes of piercing the increasingly heavy plate armor worn by knights, and generally an easier way to kill people than riding around in 100+ lbs of steel and hacking at your enemies with a several pound metal weapon until sunset. (Just like the cannon was invented for the purposes of breaching really thick fortification walls)

He's right on the point that they were designed "to kill".

Where he takes it from there......is just wrong. He has some notion that guns should only be possessed if someone needs them to kill, and I don't see any logical reason how that can be inferred from their original purpose.

Persons legitimately use guns for target shooting, sports competitions, hunting, and self-defense. Those are good reasons why legitimate possession isn't somehow inherently bad.

 

[Black Dog]

There's no debate when you think a gun is the same as a hammer or a screwdriver.

You are correct... To bad I never said that. I suggest you not put words in my mouth, thanks.

 

[Henrin]

Oh, come on.

No. If we're going to get this specific, the firearm was invented for the purposes of piercing the increasingly heavy plate armor worn by knights, and generally an easier way to kill people than riding around in 100+ lbs of steel and hacking at your enemies with a several pound metal weapon until sunset. (Just like the cannon was invented for the purposes of breeching really think castle walls)

He's right on that point. Where he takes it from there......is just wrong.

No, the average sword in use only weighed two to three pounds. Yes, a gun is lighter, but really, the weapon itself wasn't a huge burden.

 

[VanceMack]

Yeah, them lib'ruls are SO terrible...which is why oh-so-conservative RED states generally have higher divorce rates, higher teenage pregnancy rates, lower educational attainment rates, higher homicide rates, higher poverty rates...and higher proportions of their populations receiving public assistance.

One must ask how it is, then, if them doggone lib'ruls' are SO turrrrrrrible, why is it that the populations of their states are - again, generally speaking - significantly better-off than the populations of red states?

Why is that, guy?

Because even 'Red States' have liberal ****holes. Look at every major city in the country. Unfortunately...we have to deal with those ****holes too.

Take Louisiana for instance. Remove the violent criminal cesspools in Baton Rouge and New Orleans and the crime rate drops from 4th in the nation to near the bottom. Every state has them. They are like inoperable cancers.

Top 100 most dangerous places to live in the USA - NeighborhoodScout

 

[NonoBadDog]

I'll get on the phone to Trump and see if I can make it happen.

No need. It will happen one day. I don't Trump knowing where I live.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Because even 'Red States' have liberal ****holes. Look at every major city in the country. Unfortunately...we have to deal with those ****holes too.

Take Louisiana for instance. Remove the violent criminal cesspools in Baton Rouge and New Orleans and the crime rate drops from 4th in the nation to near the bottom. Every state has them. They are like inoperable cancers.

Top 100 most dangerous places to live in the USA - NeighborhoodScout

Uh-uh-uh...that doesn't work, either. Why? Because if conservative governance is SO much better than liberal governance, then the difference should also be seen between the cities in red states as compared to those in blue states. From your reference:

What is equally interesting is which cities did not make the list: Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York are all absent, despite being the centers for some of the largest urban areas in the nation.

But look who did make the list: Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee and Buffalo. These are cities in America’s heartland and Great Lakes regions.

Look at those four cities - the bluest of the blue cities in the nation, and they're not even on the list. And let's not forget that those in red states are significantly more likely to be on food stamps:



So...according to YOUR logic, it's not because blue states are better-run in any way...but because red states just have a heck of a lot more "inoperable cancers", I guess....

 

[Mr Person]

I'll get on the phone to Trump and see if I can make it happen.

No need. It will happen one day.

Ah, but you see, you didn't specify that the blond need be female in your scenario: "I envision a tall naked blonde pulling up in my driveway with a Bugatti full of gold bars followed by an armored car full of cash, just for me."

 

[VanceMack]

Uh-uh-uh...that doesn't work, either. Why? Because if conservative governance is SO much better than liberal governance, then the difference should also be seen between the cities in red states as compared to those in blue states. From your reference:

What is equally interesting is which cities did not make the list: Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York are all absent, despite being the centers for some of the largest urban areas in the nation.

But look who did make the list: Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee and Buffalo. These are cities in America’s heartland and Great Lakes regions.

Look at those four cities - the bluest of the blue cities in the nation, and they're not even on the list. And let's not forget that those in red states are significantly more likely to be on food stamps:

View attachment 67194246

So...according to YOUR logic, it's not because blue states are better-run in any way...but because red states just have a heck of a lot more "inoperable cancers", I guess....

:lamo

Chicago...

2015 Chicago Murders - Timeline - DNAinfo.com Chicago

Getda****outtaheah....

:lamo

in every one of those cities you will find the one constant thread re violent crimes. The bi-product of liberal 'love' and devotion to the Rat party.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

:lamo

Chicago...

2015 Chicago Murders - Timeline - DNAinfo.com Chicago

Getda****outtaheah....

:lamo

in every one of those cities you will find the one constant thread re violent crimes. The bi-product of liberal 'love' and devotion to the Rat party.

And that's something I've noticed about many conservatives - they see the overall totals, but can't seem to grasp that in reality, the totals don't mean squat. It's the overall RATE, the number of people killed per 100,000 that shows how dangerous a place is. For example, New York City had close to the same number of murders in 2014 as Louisiana did...BUT NYC has nearly twice as many people as Louisiana...

...which means that any particular person in Louisiana is nearly twice as likely to be killed as someone walking the streets in New York City.

I just wish that more conservatives would learn to look beyond the simplistic totals, to see where the real problems are...but then, if they did, they probably wouldn't be conservatives anymore....

 

[VanceMack]

And that's something I've noticed about many conservatives - they see the overall totals, but can't seem to grasp that in reality, the totals don't mean squat. It's the overall RATE, the number of people killed per 100,000 that shows how dangerous a place is. For example, New York City had close to the same number of murders in 2014 as Louisiana did...BUT NYC has nearly twice as many people as Louisiana...

...which means that any particular person in Louisiana is nearly twice as likely to be killed as someone walking the streets in New York City.

I just wish that more conservatives would learn to look beyond the simplistic totals, to see where the real problems are...but then, if they did, they probably wouldn't be conservatives anymore....

:lamo 'rates'

As has been said...Louisiana would be one of the safest states in the country if you remove the liberal cesspools of Baton Rouge and New Orleans.

 

[Mr Person]

Here's an extreme example to make something obvious:

:lamo 'rates'

1000 people are stabbed to death every year in Country A.

1,000,000 people are stabbed to death in Country B.

Which country are you more likely to get stabbed to death in?

You cannot answer that question without knowing the population of each. By laughing at "rates", you are taking the position that the numbers of people living in each country are irrelevant to the likelihood that you will be stabbed in that country. Let me show you why it is nonsense:


1000 people are stabbed to death every year in Country A. Country A has 100,000 residents.

1,000,000 people are stabbed to death in Country B. Country B has 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 residents.


This means 1 per 100 people get stabbed to death in Country A. 1 per 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 people get stabbed to death in country B

If you say you are more likely to get stabbed to death in Country B, this means that you are angry at things like numbers and mathematics, but don't know what they are. You see, in this case, you're running a notable risk in country A.....but you could be expected to live in Country B for many many many times the life of the entire known universe without getting stabbed.





1000 people are stabbed to death every year in Country A. Country A has 100,000 residents.

1,000,000 people are stabbed to death in Country B. Country B has 10,000,000 residents.

Now it's 1 per 100 people getting stabbed to death in Country A, but 1 per 10 people getting stabbed to death in country B.






Rates.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

:lamo 'rates'

As has been said...Louisiana would be one of the safest states in the country if you remove the liberal cesspools of Baton Rouge and New Orleans.

Wrong. And your flat-out refusal of rates versus totals only goes towards what I said earlier about many conservatives. Come to think of it, since you really don't care about likelihoods and probabilities, the casinos must really like you. Maybe that's why casinos are getting so much more popular in conservative locations - look at who's their most reliable customers: older white people.

 

[jet57]

From your own link...

and an unknown but shrinking number of local laws.

You stand corrected.

Based on what? Your unsubstantiated assertion? Sorry man but that won't fly. You said "thousands", I showed you that was not true.

Probably not. I mean anyone can play the speculation game based on nothing. Lets however look at real facts...

Australia, guns banned in 96'. Still had recent mass killing with guns. France, strict gun laws. 130 killed with illegal weapons.

Sorry criminals do not obey laws... This is a fact.

From Australia:

?We are not like America?: Australia has had no mass killings since gun control laws tightened 20 years ago | National Post

The oft-cited statistic in Australia is a simple one: There have been no mass killings – defined by experts there as a gunman killing five or more people besides himself – since the nation significantly tightened its gun control laws almost 20 years ago.

Mass shootings in Australia were rare anyway. But after a gunman massacred 35 people in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur in 1996, a public outcry spurred a national consensus to severely restrict firearms. The tightened laws, which were standardized across Australia, are more stringent than those of any state in the United States, including California.

And this "criminals don't obey the law" stuff is crap. Of course they don't obey the law! That's why they're called criminals! You're diverting form the fact that gun violence in this country is almost an epidemic.

Please post proof of this? Because I can show that guns have been readily available since this country's inception. Would have been hard to fight the Revolutionary war without arms for the militia. So please fill us in when guns became widely available in the US?

Here's all the proof you need: Mass Shootings in America: A Historical Review | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

There are so many more guns running around this country than ever before, so -please.

This is not what I asked or said... Try again, with less straw man this time.

You've been saying all along that gun control laws don't work. So, they are laxidasical. No straw man at all, I'm just using your own argument against you.

[qute]Well unlike you I said law abiding CCW carriers who are the vast majority. So no.[/quote]

IUs there another kind of CCW holder? Don't you have to be law abiding to get one?

Again - please.

As for your police analogy... that is absolutely not true. A police officer fires their weapon one time a year to qualify. Some departments may require more, most don't. I was a cop, so don't try and blow smoke up my ass about how often police train with their weapons. They fire more than the average citizen, yes... But we are talking about gun owners who tend to shoot.... A lot. A lot more than MOST police and even military personnel.

The police, on average, fire their weapons many more times than average people, who are not committing crimes. And, my son's a cop of some stature with his department and a firearms instructor. So, no smoke, I just know what I'm talking about.

Hmmm... Your guarantee seems to be worth very little...

For analysis, like the rest of my proven argument here, my guarantee is right on the money.

A random sentence from your article:

It appears that a person is three times safer with a concealed carry permit holder than they are with a police officer.

Based on what?

Attempting to determine how the homicide rate of people with CCW permits compares to that of police officers is not an easy task. There are several sources that show that people with CCW permits are far more law abiding than the general population.

Where do you derive the idea that I'm talking about the homicide rates of CCW holders? Or of cops? Homicide is a crime. I'm talking about accuracy rates when fired at people who are committing crimes.

For the data that we have, police appear to be three times as likely to commit murder as a concealed carry permit holder.


You stand corrected again.

Sorry, but I don't stand corrected at all.

Note* I had to cut some of your source quotes because I ran over the character limit.

 

[VanceMack]

Here's an extreme example to make something obvious:




1000 people are stabbed to death every year in Country A.

1,000,000 people are stabbed to death in Country B.

Which country are you more likely to get stabbed to death in?

You cannot answer that question without knowing the population of each. By laughing at "rates", you are taking the position that the numbers of people living in each country are irrelevant to the likelihood that you will be stabbed in that country. Let me show you why it is nonsense:


1000 people are stabbed to death every year in Country A. Country A has 100,000 residents.

1,000,000 people are stabbed to death in Country B. Country B has 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 residents.


This means 1 per 100 people get stabbed to death in Country A. 1 per 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 people get stabbed to death in country B

If you say you are more likely to get stabbed to death in Country B, this means that you are angry at things like numbers and mathematics, but don't know what they are. You see, in this case, you're running a notable risk in country A.....but you could be expected to live in Country B for many many many times the life of the entire known universe without getting stabbed.





1000 people are stabbed to death every year in Country A. Country A has 100,000 residents.

1,000,000 people are stabbed to death in Country B. Country B has 10,000,000 residents.

Now it's 1 per 100 people getting stabbed to death in Country A, but 1 per 10 people getting stabbed to death in country B.






Rates.

All those 'rates' in THIS country...have one common denominator. Liberal cesspools and a bi-product of 60 years of blind all in loyalty to one party. You can try to drag in Lithuania, or Estonia or wherever the **** you want to...but you cant escape the FACTS. THIS country...the one common denominator in ALL 50 STATES...

 

[Captain Adverse]

From Australia:

?We are not like America?: Australia has had no mass killings since gun control laws tightened 20 years ago | National Post

No mass killings in Australia since 1995 huh?

That's strange because:

1. Monash University Shooting, 21 October 2002 Melbourne, Victoria. 2 killed 5 wounded. A shooting spree by Huan Yun Xiang, a student at Monash University.

2. 2011 Hectorville siege, 29 April 2011, Hectorville, South Australia. 3 killed 3 wounded. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, shot four people on a neighbouring property (three of whom died), and also wounded two police officers.

3. Hunt family murders, 9 September 2014, Lockhart, New South Wales. 5 killed. Murder-suicide shooting spree by Geoff Hunt who killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

In the USA, the FBI definition is when 4 or more victims are killed. I guess we can ignore people who were wounded. Kinda makes a difference in how one defines "Mass shooting."

I'd like to point out that the source also lists several murders by arson, 171 people killed in 4 arsons. Guess you don't need a gun to commit mass murder.

 

[VanceMack]

Wrong. And your flat-out refusal of rates versus totals only goes towards what I said earlier about many conservatives. Come to think of it, since you really don't care about likelihoods and probabilities, the casinos must really like you. Maybe that's why casinos are getting so much more popular in conservative locations - look at who's their most reliable customers: older white people.

Dood...you are lost. I am the one that BROUGHT UP rates in the example of La and the two major crime infested ****holes IN La. YOU are the one that insisted on the 'Red State' rhetoric and WTF is that if not 'totals' if you cant even acknowledge the liberal cesspools that DRIVE those totals?

 

[jet57]

No mass killings in Australia since 1995 huh?

That's strange because:

1. Monash University Shooting, 21 October 2002 Melbourne, Victoria. 2 killed 5 wounded. A shooting spree by Huan Yun Xiang, a student at Monash University.

2. 2011 Hectorville siege, 29 April 2011, Hectorville, South Australia. 3 killed 3 wounded. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, shot four people on a neighbouring property (three of whom died), and also wounded two police officers.

3. Hunt family murders, 9 September 2014, Lockhart, New South Wales. 5 killed. Murder-suicide shooting spree by Geoff Hunt who killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

In the USA, the FBI definition is when 4 or more victims are killed. I guess we can ignore people who were wounded. Kinda makes a difference in how one defines "Mass shooting."

your question is covered here:

First, the rates of intentional firearm deaths were substantially higher in the 28 years before the gun control measures were adopted in 1996 than in the 17 years after.

Second, the initial drop in firearm deaths in the decade after the 1996 restrictions were enacted appears to have levelled off. In 2013, the most recent year for which figures are available, there were 200 gun-related homicides and suicides, for a rate of 0.87 deaths per 100,000 residents. That is up slightly from the low in 2005, when 0.82 deaths per 100,000 residents were recorded, but still far below the 2.71 deaths per 100,000 residents in 1996.

One your notations was a domestic violence incident. One appears to be some sort of property dispute and the other appears to be a random thing that might qualify. The point is, since Australia has enacted its gun laws, it's just not happening anymore the way it was. This country however is over the top.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Ah, but you see, you didn't specify that the blond need be female in your scenario: "I envision a tall naked blonde pulling up in my driveway with a Bugatti full of gold bars followed by an armored car full of cash, just for me."

Trump isn't the kind of tall blonde I was thinking of. That is creepy. Yuk.