Non Gun Owners talking about guns...

As opposed to your approach?

And what relevance does this above have to any part of the discussion? What does it matter how many individuals have escaped harm by legally possessing a firearm, compared to those that have not and do not? Are you attempting to say that if the numbers are too low, then the findings of defensive firearms use is simply invalid and should not be counted?

The same study has this

Thus serving as proof that firearms were not designed for the purpose of killing, otherwise the number of nonfatal injuries would be much lower, while the number of fatal injuries and deaths would be significantly higher.

Which has never been denied, but adds no relevance to the discussion.

Meaning that such incidents are statistically insignificant in the discussion, and do no warrant wide-reaching legislative responses in the aftermath.

And pray tell who has argued otherwise?

Less than fourteen thousand per year, which is in line with statistics showing that the majority of firearm-related deaths are suicides. It should be noted that the FBI has also reported that as much as eighty percent of all homicides are committed by known criminals with preexisting records.

Broken down accurately, very few homicides are committed by legal firearm owners. Less than fifty per each state.

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)."

Which tells us what has already been known for some time now. That it is difficult to use a firearm to commit suicide, when there is no firearm present. However that is not the same thing as saying that a firearm not being present will prevent a suicide from occurring.

Indeed it does not. A great many private citizens own firearms but do not commit suicide, or even engage in suicidal behavior.

You are trying to suggest that firearm owners have a higher percentage rate of suicide than others. A more accurate assessment would be that those who wish to commit suicide are more likely to select a firearm for such purposes than other methods. The two are quite different.

 

You are wrong on pretty much every line you wrote. You did the same thing ChrisL did/does. You didn't read the study because if you did, your cut and paste of my clip should have included this:
You put:
""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
Thus serving as proof that firearms were not designed for the purpose of killing, otherwise the number of nonfatal injuries would be much lower, while the number of fatal injuries and deaths would be significantly higher.
First- that's some weird logic you're using there but to continue from the study.....
"Fatal and nonfatal firearm violence poses a serious threat to the safety and welfare of the American public. As discussed in the Introduction, there are legal and responsible uses for firearms, including law enforcement, self-defense, and recreational uses. However, the presence of guns in civil society can also lead to firearm-related violence. Although violent crime rates have declined in recent years (Truman, 2011), the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries (Richardson and Hemenway, 2011). In 2010, incidents involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 individuals in the United States.20 A recent estimate suggested that firearm violence cost the United States more than $174 billion in 2010 (Miller, 2010). However, it is essentially impossible to quantify the overall physiological, mental, emotional, social, and collateral economic effects of firearm violence, because these effects extend well beyond the victim to the surrounding community and society at large (IOM, 2012).

I got a laugh from this
"You are trying to suggest that firearm owners have a higher percentage rate of suicide than others. A more accurate assessment would be that those who wish to commit suicide are more likely to select a firearm for such purposes than other methods. The two are quite different."
I didn't suggest that....two different studies said that. You can disagree but it would be fair for you to produce your facts to refute the studies other than your own strange logic........oh wait, you said "Indeed it does not". Good enough, like coming from the burning bush.

 

Really?

When did you join that "well regulated militia"?

 

To be clear
Your contention is the slaves in the South, being citizens, had "the right of the people".

 

1791 is when Second Amendment was written

225 years ago!!!!


Does the left think it was written last year?..wtf

Start year and educate yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

LOL!!! I think our "militia" (considering the outcomes we've seen), is FAR from being "well regulated"... unless we're referring to the U.S. Armed Forces. I was around a LOT of firearms and weapon systems for 35+ years, and I think that way too many people (civilians) don't have a decent clue about what proper regulation would be.

America is currently SCREWED... because our gun policies are overly-liberal. We need a lot more control (regulation) than we presently have in place.

 

No thanks

 

I understand you have an opinion and so do I... but the NATION will come to various consensuses (perhaps long after we're gone, maybe sooner) and things WILL change.

 

Why do leftists persist in using "well regulated" incorrectly, when the phrase in 1776 had nothing to do with government regulation?

Why do leftists continually ignore the fact that the 2A exists in the Bill of Rights? If the 2A was designed as a rule for militias, why was it included in a document that was created to protect individual rights?

 

Nah..

I'll just keep following the Constitution

They came to a concensus 225 years ago..

 

You speak as though YOUR perception/interpretation of what's written in the Constitution, is all that there is.

The people, lawmakers and courts are hardly finished with it. (And I'm glad about that.)

 

Translation: You know you cannot counter what I said.

Nonsense.
We both know you cannot cite a single post of mine that says this.

Nonsense.
The 2nd says no such thing.

Nonsense.
The entirely of the bill of rights is interpreted with "modern realities" -- thsi is why the state needs a warant to tap your cell phone, and why the 2nd protects modern firearms.

Nonsense.
As there is no such thing as a "military grade assault weapon", your "point" here is meaningless.

Nonsense.
Magazine-fed semi-auto rifles have been around since the beginning of the 20th century.
In the 40s, you could buy magazine-fed semi-auto rifles that had been issues to the US military
And so, your perception hat we had not been "threatened " by "such weapons" has no basis in fact, as the public has had unfettered access to them for over 100 years.

Nonsense.
Until the 2nd is repealed, it's there, it means something you do not like, and you do not get to ignore it.
Wipe the snot form your nose, the tears form your eyes and get used to it.

 

Why do you continue with this inanity?

You KNOW The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Thus, you KNOW your question is meaningless.

 

How about taking a stab at answering the questions I asked?

 

Sorry, you don't rule the narrative here.

I said what I think I wanted/needed to say; for now.

 

How is it scary and irresponsible?

 

I wasn't aware I made a ruling.

All I did was ask you to back up your baloney, which, you obviously cannot.

Thanks for showing everyone even more leftist deception and unwillingness to actually debate the issues.

 

34,000 people die and thousands more injured every year...how's that speed limit law working for these 34,000 people?

Speed limit laws are constantly violated and yes some people, including the police, at times go as fast as they can go.

Here's the rub...if Americans TRULY cared about human life, like the 50 in Orlando or the 34,000 killed on roads each year, there are decent solutions but no one will allow the solutions to be implemented! Regarding the 34,000 killed on highways, if we reduced all speed limits to the speeds in which traffic accidents do not cause deaths, like 35mph, and this was actually enforced, we would save the lives of 34,000 people...but we won't do it! Therefore, it's pretty much political BS to have all this diatribe about the loss of 50 lives in Orlando when 93 die every single day in traffic accidents and there is NO discussion...

 

Simply because they were ignored by those in power does not mean that they did not exist.

Originally the united states constitution applied only to the federal government, not to individual states, meaning it was up to the states to determine what their laws would be with no federal interference. After the civil war this policy changed, and the federal government began to get involved because congress had changed.

None of which does anything to change the facts. 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.

 

The entirety of your argument boils down to little more than basic semantics, disagreeing with what the proper terminology is, while ignoring the substance itself. It is no different from discussing whether or not it is appropriate to refer to unmanned aerial vehicles as being drones. You cannot explain why what is being said is incorrect, or even why your points should be regarded as more valid than those raised by others.

 

Really? Here, read this chart and get back to me when you realize how poor your argument is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Another dumb statement...." 93 die every single day in traffic accidents ". Orlando wasn't an accident.

 

You mean other than what you just wrote? Thank you for proving my point.
"Simply because they were ignored by those in power does not mean that they did not exist."- To the FF slaves didn't exist, they weren't citizens, they didn't get the benefits of the Constitution. Not racist-fact. They didn't know any better.

 

Facts are not semantics. You don't have to believe them but they are still facts.

 

I know no such thing.

And I'll ask again (and be ignored again)

Why is the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary" not only in that Amendment but phrased BEFORE anything else?

If you claim it means nothing and was just "word salad"...point to anywhere else in that document where such word salad exists

 

Given the number of times you have been proven wrong, this can -only- mean that you choose to lie to yourself.