Non Gun Owners talking about guns...

You just did exactly what you accused her of:

a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun

Is that 1%, 5%?

/yawn

 

True, but the difference is that's not the main point of the quote. In fact of the 3 sentences the one you are pointing out is the least important.With ChrisL the main point was the statistic.

 

Hey, the facts are the facts. Sorry that you don't like facts because they interfere with your fearmongering agenda.

Was there anything I posted not a fact? No, all were facts extrapolated from the Obama White House funded (at the cost of 10 MILLION dollars of tax payer dollars) CDC study on gun violence which was performed in 2010. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they change.

 

Red herring-they never put anything in the constitution that would allow the federal government to prevent the NRA from lobbying against the unconstitutional crap the Democrat party pushes. What they did do was to prevent the federal government from interfering with privately owned firearms. Many statists forget that the constitution was set up so that the people and the states could do whatever they wanted on a federal level unless the federal government was specifically delegated powers to prevent such actions

 

how about this?

i stop saying "cops get to play with the cool guns due to their training and background checks" if YOU stop using offensive pejoratives like "Bannerhoid" and "the BM movement"?

deal?

 

That word really gets to you, eh? That's funny. Now they will use it TWICE as often. Lol.

 

The Germans who invented the Sturmgevehr would disagree with you. So might Mikhail Kalishnikov or the American Stoner.

Not much scares lefties, at least not to the point that we feel it necessary to go about armed to the teeth.

 

Bull. You people are peeing your pants about guns all the time.

 

So your argument is that despite having laws, some people choose to break the law anyways. I guess the logical outcome of this argument is to have no laws at all.

 

Must be a Liberal racist thing....

 

Yes, facts are facts and you dismiss the ones you don't like. I may not like the "facts" you mention but you dismiss the ones I bring up. Like this from the same study

"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."

 

Look at you! Grasping at straws. Lol!

Unintentional injury the leading cause of death? Sure, but not due to guns. Notice how the statement is presented. "Firearm-related injury, in particular, is a serious THREAT to the health of the nation." ??? This is pure hyperbole by an Obama funded CDC. Lol. The FACTS don't agree with you, considering how many people in fact SAVE themselves from injury with their firearms. It also doesn't state who was "injured". Criminals?

 

Even if this was true it's not a reason for elected officials to create laws which don't solve problems and are not common sense...

 

And let's talk about the types of "communities" that are most effected by firearm violence day in and day out, shall we?

 

Laws mostly provide a consequential and/or subsequent action to remedy something that has already happened. All of this political diatribe is people demanding that the government do something to PREVENT people from killing other people...and there are NO laws that can prevent anything! We have the death penalty for murdering another person and this doesn't stop anyone from murder! The government can confiscate all AR-15 type guns from society and there will still be the same quantity of shootings/killings. The government can confiscate all extended-capacity cartridges from society and there will still be the same quantity of shootings/killings. 99.9% of drivers exceed the posted speed limits even though the posted speed limit is a LAW...why is this? And a good portion of the 34,000 killed every year in traffic accidents is rooted in excessive speeds yet we continue to kill 93 Americans every single day. LAWS are nothing but a legal action after the fact and basically do nothing to prevent anything...

 

(sigh) Yep, the study that YOU brought up is now hyperbole. Why, oh yeah, it goes against the point you keep pushing.
Where did I hear that before....oh yeah, I did in the post you're answering. Thank you for proving how irrelevant your opinion is.

 

Wait....speed limits are laws that provide a consequential and/or subsequent action to remedy something that already happened? I would think the speed limit is there to try to PREVENT an action from happening. Without them (speed limits) you could go as fast as you want all the time. Right?

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, go ahead.

 

juvenile flamebait is unproductive for these discussions.

 

Irrelevant.
Political Parties = free speech, freedom of assembly
Political lobbying = free speech.
1st Amendment - working as intended.

Now, prove to us again that proof means noting to you, and tell us that to own an 'assault weapon', you have to be part of a well-regulated militia.



- - - Updated - - -

You've been shown the fallacious nature of your statement, above.
Why do you keep repeating it?

 

Your little narrow view of what you THINK is out here, is specious.

There are millions of people who have been formally trained in fire arms and even used them as a profession (me being one of them) who does not advocate for ALL that other gun owners do.

Your view (as expressed in part above), is reflective of a certain social 'myopia' surrounding firearms in this society. I don't appreciate it and neither do millions of other sane/aware Americans.

 

Not to be rude..

But your opinion on guns means nothing to me

Ill follow the Constitution that you claim to have protected..

Thanks

 

I don't mind rude; dehumanizing, I won't tolerate.

Even so, I think the better answers and consensuses will emanate from a society which has indeed FULLY researched, discussed and debated the related issues.

The ultimate goal in my view, is not labeling anyone "right" or "wrong" per se, because many of the actual best solutions have yet to be determined. And I know, just from the complex nature of the problems, no one participating here, nor in any single debate/discussion will have all of the answers; that isn't realistic.

These problems are going to take a lot of time and effort to mitigate and I would not be shocked at all, if it took one or two lifetimes (from this point) to fine tune things as they should be.

 

You have shown nothing Jon Snow, all you do is argue in circles. You decide that the 2nd amendment apparently can have no restrictions upon it even though it clearly states "well regulated", you deny that it was intended to sustain a militia even though that is exactly what it states and what notes from the debates intended, you then claim that while the 1st amendment can keep up with modern realities, the 2nd amendment is immune to modern realities such as making military grade assault weapons commercially available because a gun company bought the patents and marketed it to make money in the 60s and 70s. Prior to that unfortunate money grubbing venture, we were not threatened by any such weapon having declared in the 30s that sub-machine guns were not legal...so, your arguments start first with a bias towards an opinion (yours), then move in any direction you need to stifle any debate on the issue and you expect the rest of us to buy it.

Sorry. We are one election away and three court appointments from limiting the 2nd amendment. Get used to it Rambo.

 

So much wrong in so few sentences.

a) What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights?
b) What did "well-regulated" mean in 1776 and for at least 100 years after that?
c) How is the 1A different than it was in 1776?
d) AR15's are not "military grade assault weapons". No military in the world uses a semi-automatic rifle, and no combat unit has ever assaulted a position with one. Assault weapons require full auto capabilities, and are used by large numbers of troops to suppress a position allowing it to be assaulted.
e) Machine guns were not made illegal in the 30's. Machine guns are still legal to own with a tax stamp.

 

Various amendments to the bill of rights explicitly state "the right of the people" not "the right of the white landowners" or anything else along those lines. There is no textual evidence of any sort found within the united states constitution, that either proves or even suggests that "the people" was intended from the very beginning to excludes black and women. You have no evidence of any sort to support your racist spiel that the founding fathers intended for rights to apply only to rich white males who could afford to own land, and absolutely no one else.