Non Gun Owners talking about guns...

What is it that you disagree with in the excerpt that I posted. Are you trying to claim that is not true and didn't happen?

- - - Updated - - -

You have an agenda. That much is obvious. Why don't you try being honest with at LEAST yourself. Pathetic.

 

the ACLU doesn't have an agenda? its leadership is on record for wanting to deny that the 2nd is an individual right/ the ACLU is a joke when it comes to rights that it sees as mainly supported by conservatives, such as the right of assembly and the right to keep and bear arms. Then again 70% or more of its membership identifies as hard left

 

That is notwhere my quote is from anyways. My quote is from the site I provided in my link. Now, refute with some facts anything that I've posted. ANYTHING.

 

You didn't read the article. It shows where the NRA did the same to many candidates which in fact shows YOUR claim that they don't do that to be false.

 

The NRA doesn't HAVE to back any particular candidate. WTH does that have to do with anything at all?

 

Again, the problem with reading comprehension. For one thing your "constitutional rights" organization has a terrible reputation while the one that I go with has a very good reputation. If you had read the link you would know that they agree more with you than with me......but there's that comprehension thing.

 

Forget it. She's denying reality.

Proof means nothing to people like that

 

Can you prove the anecdotes are true? Right now they are just heresay. the stories fit your narrative, what a shock.....but until proven they are just stories.
If they are true know that the laws weren't about gun control as much as they are about racism. They wanted to get the guns away from the blacks. Great example.

 

Of course they are true! Read and weep.

http://reason.com/archives/2005/02/15/the-klans-favorite-law

 

The only agenda I have is to get you to see the light. Run to the light Chris L, run to the light before it's too late.

- - - Updated - - -

You're quoting yourself here so I don't know what you're talking about.

 

I am in the light. You are the one in the dark with your fear.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes you do. More dishonesty (or stupidity?)

 

OK, read it. What's your point? The discussion was about the constitution was for white land owners that could vote. The gentleman disagreed. You come with anecdotes about KKK laws that were upheld by the SCOTUS. If your point is gun control laws are racist, yeah, THOSE gun laws in THAT state were racist.....as they were meant to be...so is that your point or is your point that you are racist. If it is, I concede. Congratulations
Sleep well.............and run to the light

 

Still waiting for ONE of you to tell me what it is you think is false about anything I've quoted about racism and gun control measures. I guess you're just going to run to a mod and tell. Lol. Liberal men . . . . well, you know.

- - - Updated - - -

And you've provided NO evidence of any of your accusations. NONE.

 

Now, let's take a look at what one of the most recent studies did in fact uncover. Don't forget now, this study was done at the BEHEST of the Obama White House and was conducted by the CDC. Of course, we all know that the anti-rights posters will stomp their feet, get angry, try to change the subject, try to smear the results, or just completely ignore it.

When we look at the results of this study (with information extracted from NUMEROUS sources), who do YOU think is trying to "save lives?" The anti-rights people? I don't think so. They have some kind of evil agenda. What it is, while there are several theories, nobody really knows for sure. I have to think that at least SOME of them are criminals themselves. After all, it is very bad for the business of the criminal to have to worry about armed citizens. Isn't that right, leftists?



1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

 

How about the fact that they dishonestly lump suicide in with deaths from firearms and try to represent these numbers as if they are all homicides or accidents. We've already established the fact that accidental shootings are extremely RARE in a country of over 300 million people. So, the studies say that over 60% of all firearm deaths are suicides.

The left will then turn around and use this suicide data to try to blame guns. At the SAME time, they claim they believe in body sovereignty. I call BS. They are WAY too contradictory. Every claim they make is a contradiction to another claim they make somewhere else!

I give the leftists' arguments in the realm of gun control a big fat thumbs down!

 

The left does the same thing with illegal aliens, they always count legal immigrants with illegal aliens.

 

This is page 50 of this thread. All these things have already been talked about. Oh, and by the way, I notice that you did some editing to make your points.

 

1st Amendment: Working as intended.

Maybe if your side had a better argument, you;d have more people willing to donate to the groups that do the same thing as the NRA, just on the opposite side.

- - - Updated - - -

Says she who -still- insists that to own an 'assault weapon', you have to be part of a well-regulated militia.


Proof means nothing to people like you.

 

I didn't edit any of these.

 

No,you're probably right because you never looked at the study. If you had then you would know the edit. Here is the whole paragraph
"A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual
defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings."
So your quote isn't wrong, but it's not right either.
Here's number 2.....which, in the survey by the way, is the paragraph just BEFORE the one above....but you wouldn't know that because you only read a blog ABOUT the survey
"Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."
Again, your not wrong......but you sure ain't right
All your quotes are like that. You really should learn to think for yourself.

 

Meaning that you have absolutely no evidence to prove that the united states constitution was drafted with the specific intent of protecting the constitutional rights of those who were rich and white, and not anyone else. There is nothing written anywhere to suggest "the right of the people" in truth means "the right of the white landowners" or anything else along those lines.

You have no argument, and no credibility.

 

Meanwhile you have done precisely nothing to show that the member ChrisL is incorrect about the information provided. Your citations are saying the exact same thing, just in a different format. And what your citations are saying, is that defensive use of a firearm leads to fewer being injured than any other method, and that it is far more common than criminal use of a firearm.

 

The Founders never intended for political parties...never intended for groups like the NRA to control those parties OR Congress. It's not an argument that's needed. It's dollas.

By the way the VOTERS want better legislation on this issue.

 

I have no argument....right. You're saying at the time the Constitution was written it protected the rights of blacks and women. What rights would those be? Blacks had the right of free speech? Of course they did. I have no credibility?!! What evidence do you offer that women and blacks had the same rights as white land owners? How do you explain the amendments added to give them those rights? The amendments prove my arguments. What proves yours.

 

Wow, you see what you want.
I didn't say the information provided was wrong. I said it was incomplete. ChrisL put quotes there to show "lefties" how wrong they are but given the complete quote the context is different. Take the first quote as example. Defensive use (and use means actually taking the gun and using it-not just showing it) has consistently showed the victim showed less injuries than non gun defensive types. What it doesn't say is how many. What percent. For all we know out of a thousand 501 bad guys got hurt and 499 good guys were hurt. It also says more study is needed to qualify the numbers.
The same study has this

"Scope of the Public Health Problem

Injuries and Fatalities

Unintentional injury is the leading cause of death in Americans aged 1 to 44 (NCHS, 2012). Firearm-related injury, in particular, is a serious threat to the health of the nation, with direct costs to the victims of violence as well as societal costs to families, friends, and communities. In 2010, there were twice as many nonfatal firearm-related injuries (73,505) as deaths.4,5
Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States.6,7 The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Specifically, since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons (Bjelopera et al., 2013).
Although overall crime rates have declined in the past decade and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years (FBI, 2011a), crime-related deaths involving firearms remain a serious threat. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 68,720 people were murdered in firearm-related violence between 2007 and 2011. During that same time frame, firearms accounted for more than twice as many murders as all other weapons combined (FBI, 2011b). More than two-thirds of victims murdered by a spouse or ex-spouse died as a result of a gunshot wound (Cooper and Smith, 2011). More than 600,000 victims of robbery and other crimes reported that they faced an assailant armed with a gun (Truman and Rand, 2010)."
Forgot to put that quote up
ChrisL put this on her post
"7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
But didn't put the rest of the paragraph
" Research demonstrates that the proportion of suicide by firearm is greater in areas with higher household gun ownership (NRC, 2005). Further, two studies found “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both [studies] also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun” (NRC, 2005, p. 181)."
Kind of changes the context....right?