Why is the average firearm owner, an unsafe gun owner?

[jaeger19]

Except for the sources you cited that say they do because means restrictions works.

The problem is you define “ means restriction” erroneously.
You are of course welcome to show that moving the kitchen knives 4 more feet away will significantly reduce suicide.


By the way , if restriction of firearms works to reduce suicide?

Explain why South Korea and Japan , with virtually no firearms have among the highest suicide rates???

You just hate inconvenient truth don’t you?

 

[jaeger19]

Aren't you a gun instructor? Don't you tell people that having a gun in their home keeps them safe?

No, I don’t.
Why would you think that ? And why do you think it’s relevant to the debate???

Do you own firearms?

 

[Scatty Kitty]

The problem is you define “ means restriction” erroneously.
You are of course welcome to show that moving the kitchen knives 4 more feet away will significantly reduce suicide.


By the way , if restriction of firearms works to reduce suicide?

Explain why South Korea and Japan , with virtually no firearms have among the highest suicide rates???

You just hate inconvenient truth don’t you?

Well you don't seem to understand ordinal variables. Not going to lie for the person who thinks something as simple as a poster is a waste of resources, it comes across like you don't understand the basic issues.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

No, I don’t.
Why would you think that ? And why do you think it’s relevant to the debate???

Do you own firearms?

Didn't you say you were a gun instructor previously?

Oh that's because of the problem of gun instructors not teaching people how to be aware of signs for suicide.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Oh than the final paragraph:

"All of us crave a safer home and community. Mounting scientific evidence indicates that bringing a gun into the home isn’t a step in that direction. On the contrary, if safety is the goal, it’s more likely to be a shot in the foot—or much worse."

Which says nothing to the prevalence of defensive gun use (which the CDC says happens 500,000 to 3 million times per a year).

 

[jaeger19]

Well you don't seem to understand ordinal variables. Not going to lie for the person who thinks something as simple as a poster is a waste of resources, it comes across like you don't understand the basic issues.

Please. As if we are discussing ordinal variables and you even know what that means.

Your post doesn’t even address what I said .

Pretty clear you don’t understand the basic issues.
It’s why you are all over the place.

 

[jaeger19]

Didn't you say you were a gun instructor previously?

Oh that's because of the problem of gun instructors not teaching people how to be aware of signs for suicide.

Again with your random posts.

Try to stay on track. My response you quoted .
“No, I don’t.
Why would you think that ? And why do you think it’s relevant to the debate???

Do you own firearms?”


Explain why you think as a gun instructor I “ tell people that owning a gun keeps them safe”

Then explain how that’s relevant to the debate at hand.

Then answer the question. Do you own firearms?

 

[Rich2018]

that's what we need to do - stop people before they commit horrible crimes, before they are convicted, I agree.

There's a ***HUGE*** difference in stopping someone as they attempt to commit a criminal act and arresting/incarcerating someone who is not breaking the law at all - which is what you would do

Furthmre I would demand that if the police do stop someone in the act of committing a crime. They should be arrested and tried and then ***ONLY*** be sentenced/incarcerated if they are subsequently convicted
Whereas you would incarcerated people just because it is "known" that they are violent and/or mentally ill

Sorry but I can't accept your fascist outlook and the politics of the GULAG
That's a pass from me comrade.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Just because something is the way it is, doesn't mean that it has to be that way.

true

we could conquer nations and make them our fellow citizens - that's something we could do

 

[hecatmoggie]

There's a ***HUGE*** difference in stopping someone as they attempt to commit a criminal act

that's not what happened in that article

and arresting/incarcerating someone who is not breaking the law at all - which is what you would do

which is what the officials did when stopping that mass shooter

Indiana teen arrested for allegedly plotting a mass shooting

A tip to an anonymous hotline leads to arrest of teenager in central Indiana who police say was plotting to carry out a mass shooting at her high school on Friday.

abcnews.go.com

read again - this is what you supported and called fantastic before .... aare you now changing your mind ?

Furthmre I would demand that if the police do stop someone in the act of committing a crime. They should be arrested and tried and then ***ONLY*** be sentenced/incarcerated if they are subsequently convicted
Whereas you would incarcerated people just because it is "known" that they are violent and/or mentally ill

Sorry but I can't accept your fascist outlook and the politics of the GULAG
That's a pass from me comrade.

I support stopping the mass shooting above

you don't

 

[Rich2018]

that's not what happened in that article

If the person that was stopped by police was arrested charged and went to trial - then I support that

But you would incarcerate him just because he was "known" to be violent/mentally ill.

That the fascist politics of the GULAG
And a hard pass from me comrade.

I support stopping the mass shooting above

you don't

Yes I do, hence my support for gun control (and certain edged weapons).

AND

Control of the carrying of offensive weapons.

 

[RF667799]

If the person that was stopped by police was arrested charged and went to trial - then I support that

But you would incarcerate him just because he was "known" to be violent/mentally ill.

You support detaining people in a concentration camp just because they were Japanese.

Your positions are strangely incoherent.

That the fascist politics of the GULAG
And a hard pass from me comrade.





Yes I do, hence my support for gun control (and certain edged weapons).

AND

Control of the carrying of offensive weapons.

What about defensive weapons? I believe you support the prohibition of carrying those, right?

 

[hecatmoggie]

If the person that was stopped by police was arrested charged and went to trial - then I support that

But you would incarcerate him just because he was "known" to be violent/mentally ill.

That the fascist politics of the GULAG
And a hard pass from me comrade.

you do too - you said it was awesome that before a crime was committed the police arrested and stopped a would be killer

you didn't pass at all - you said "awesome"

this person was KNOWN to be violent - thus arrested and stopped from committing the violence

do you understand now ?

Yes I do, hence my support for gun control (and certain edged weapons).

AND

Control of the carrying of offensive weapons.

if you disarm me and taking my way of protecting myself, you are now responsible for protecting me. If I'm robbed or assaulted ... who can I sue for that ?

 

[poppopfox]

if you disarm me and taking my way of protecting myself, you are now responsible for protecting me. If I'm robbed or assaulted ... who can I sue for that ?

You can't defend yourself without a gun? Then I suggest a large breed dog to fight your battles for you!

 

[RF667799]

You can't defend yourself without a gun? Then I suggest a large breed dog to fight your battles for you!

Did Buddha defend himself with his belly?

What Would Buddha Do?
Buy An Assault Rifle or Two

(Apologies to Southpark)

 

[Lursa]

You can't defend yourself without a gun? Then I suggest a large breed dog to fight your battles for you!

Why should he have to?

 

[Scatty Kitty]

true

we could conquer nations and make them our fellow citizens - that's something we could do

Or we can realize that if a right makes us less human and actively hurts us, we can get rid of it or change it.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Again with your random posts.

Try to stay on track. My response you quoted .
“No, I don’t.
Why would you think that ? And why do you think it’s relevant to the debate???

Do you own firearms?”


Explain why you think as a gun instructor I “ tell people that owning a gun keeps them safe”

Then explain how that’s relevant to the debate at hand.

Then answer the question. Do you own firearms?

Didn't read the OP person 4/5. Thank you for confirming you never bothered.

Have a good day.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Please. As if we are discussing ordinal variables and you even know what that means.

Your post doesn’t even address what I said .

Pretty clear you don’t understand the basic issues.
It’s why you are all over the place.

An ordinal variable implies magnitude without a specific scale. Small medium and large for example.

Have a good day.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Which says nothing to the prevalence of defensive gun use (which the CDC says happens 500,000 to 3 million times per a year).

Didn't look at the source Jaeger quoted very hard did you.

 

[RF667799]

Or we can realize that if a right makes us less human and actively hurts us, we can get rid of it or change it.

Rights are a result of being human.

Such a misanthropic position.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Rights are a result of being human.

Such a misanthropic position.

K

 

[RF667799]

K

I think that's a fad promulgated by some therapists and psychiatrists. To respond to uncomfortable critique with that passive aggressive dismissal.

"Hey if you put antifreeze in your crankcase, you'll **** up your car!"

"K"
(keeps putting antifreeze in crankcase)

 

[jaeger19]

Didn't read the OP person 4/5. Thank you for confirming you never bothered.

Have a good day.

Yeah I did. Stop lying.

 

[hecatmoggie]

You can't defend yourself without a gun? Then I suggest a large breed dog to fight your battles for you!

not many can defend themselves against a big violent criminal who's going to have a weapon

certainly not women, and not many men

a gun is the great equalizer