The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years

Semi-automatic rifles have been legal for private ownership since they were first created in the early twentieth century, and were first marketed towards hunters and other sportsmen. It was more than thirty years before such rifles were considered a viable option for military use.

 

How does such apply to situations when the motor vehicle is used as a weapon, rather than a form of transportation?

Pray tell how so? How are the firearms of today somehow more deadly than the firearms of the early twentieth century?

 

This argument has a number of fallacies.

Even liberal studies on defensive gun use point towards 100k DGU's per year. Most DGU's do not result in shots fired, or criminals killed in self-defense.

There is no correlation, or law, that would stop suicides. Our suicide rate, for example, is not far separated from the suicide rate in Canada or Australia, despite our easy access to firearms. Women especially do not choose guns for suicide even though they are readily available.

 

We already have common sense gun laws. We have background checks. Maybe they should look into fixing that problem huh?

Suicide has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with being suicidal.

As far as terrorism, the FBI, mental health professionals, and the FBI knew about the Orlando shooter, the San Bernardino shooters, the FT Hood shooter, this guy too.....nothing was done because of Obama's POLICIES saying stereotyping is bad and it shouldn't be done.

All of these events could, and should, have been prevented.

Why weren't they?

 

The "round-up" campaign to donate to the NRA is member driven, not gun driven. People CHOOSE to donate to that via the retailer, that's not income from "manufacturers". Midway, Cabela's etc are not "gun manufacturers".

If people are smart they'll continue to donate to the oldest civil rights organization in the country. Without the NRA we wouldn't have firearms right now. Not agreeing with everything they do or say is one thing, but not supporting them as a gun owner is just foolish.

 

No, he did not have a "machine gun", nor did the Orlando shooter.

Should the "common sense gun laws" have observed neither shooter would have been successful. Mental health experts, police and others knew the Aurora shooter was crazy and planned to hurt others, but they did nothing.

The Orlando shooter was known to have had problems his entire life, the FBI knew about him, his company who hired him AS A SECURITY GUARD pencil-whipped his psyche evals and background checks.

If the laws were followed in the first place, neither one of them would have been able to do what they did.

 

Accidental gun deaths is one of the lowest forms of accidental death. Common household chemicals kill 75 times more people than firearms. Ladders are a close second.

 

Most countries in the world are far more violent, even with gun laws.

How's those gun restrictions working in Mexico and South America? They don't, of course.

Every individual has the right to defend their own lives, and the tools to do so. Governments cannot and do not protect their population, and gun control is one of the first steps taken to oppress the citizenry.

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds like the laws that shouldn't have allowed them to get guns don't work.

Your idea? Moar laws.

Yeah that's gonna work.

If we actually enforced the laws we have they wouldn't have gotten firearms, at least from a legal source.

 

You do understand that your accurate description of the study, above, proves that the conclusion of the study is unsound - right?

- - - Updated - - -

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

Why do you not know that your statement is utterly false?

Let us know when you amend out constitution to remove the right to keep and bear amrs.

This is a post hoc fallacy.

- - - Updated - - -

Unsupportable nonsense.
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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Neither does education, retirement or health care.
Your point?

- - - Updated - - -

~65% of guns-related deaths are suicide.
So...?

 

what do you think the second amendment was intended to do?

 

actually several pro gun studies were started by people who were, initially, anti gun including Gary Kleck and yes, Joh Lott.

smoking induced cancer is a medical issue. Gun shot wounds are a criminology issue. Kellerman's study has been reamed steamed and dry cleaned because

1) MOST DEFENSIVE uses of guns DO not involve criminals being KILLED but deterred

2) Kellerman counted a "gun in the home" incidents where intruders brought the gun into a home and shot someone.

the rest of your post is no more meritorious than Kellerman's study

The Anti Rights Coalition movement has been trying to badmouth the NRA by claiming its a mouthpiece of the gun industry

1) even if it was, that means nothing to me-unlike members of the BM, the gun industry is a good thing to me

2) its BS and the BM knows it is

 

Protect a citizens rights to own a gun. The 2nd amendment doesn't need the NRA.

 

Here's the problem with the DGU argument. If you didn't have to shoot the guy.. he probably wasn't really a threat. the very fact that estimates of supposed DGU's vary from 43,000 to Five million tell me that you really can't define it.

On the other hand, according to FBI statistics, there are only 200 cases a year of "justifiable homicides" where a civilian shoots someone fatally. So if you take the lowest DGU figure, of 43K, you would have to believe that gun owners only have to shoot the guy 1 out of 215 times they need to pull their guns in fear. That's just not plausible.

 

well, mostly because when you say gun ownership is a right... you really have a hard time taking away people's guns, don't you. I imagine what would have happened if Obama started taking people's guns. You'd have Alex Jones and Wayne LaPeirre screaming bloody murder, and you know it.

 

The government shouldn't be funding any research.

 

It shouldn't, but it does.

 

Purely opinion, and also doesn't account for DGUs that include shooting and wounding a threat or shooting and missing a threat, who then takes the opportunity to run away. Guns are great for killing, but they aren't perfect at it. Wounds exceed deaths by about 5:1 ratio.

 

How so? 1:215 is a high number for LEO. It's not only plausible, it's probable.

 

There are no group of people more fanatical than the anti-gun crowd. And they use fear and outright lies to promote fear with their goal of total disarmament.

 

No it means that the criminal was smart enough to know what would happen to him if the intended victim pulled the trigger. The fact that there is evidence that people stop an act of violence against themselves just by showing the criminal their gun justifies the right to keep and bear arms. Just because you see no need doesn't mean others shouldn't have the opportunity to defend themselves when their government cannot. Based on the overwhelming growth of licensed concealed carry and lack of blood running in the streets, I would say you have more to worry about from vehicles, texting, and hospitals.

DGU without firing a shot is all the plausibility needed.

 

that's one of the silliest things I have ever heard. If you didn't have to shoot the guy he wasn't a threat

OMG that takes the cake for ignorance of criminals' activities.

- - - Updated - - -

the anti gun movement is malignant in the sense that never stops trying to take away our rights You cannot stop fighting it

 

There is not a conservative alive that complains about removal of firearms from violent people, as long as due process is followed.

This is our main argument: government has all the tools it needs to keep criminals from owning guns, but they do not punish violent offenders, and when they try they are incompetent at it.

What we need is a nationwide implementation of Project Exile that was so successful in Virginia. What we need to do is make gang membership and gang activity penalties so severe, that no criminal would WANT to either own a firearm or belong to a gang.

Of course, that will never happen, because liberals want everything to be illegal, but they don't want to enforce any of the laws they spend so much time, effort, and money creating.

Instead, liberals want to ignore the crimes, let killers go free, and blame the tool. Insanity squared.

 

That argument doesn't hold water.

If I draw a gun and the person runs, that means THEY don't want to die. It does NOT mean they weren't willing and able to try and kill me.

It is plausible, because there are plenty of documented cases where someone used a gun to save their lives.

Most DGU's, as you indicated, don't result in shots fired. Most DGU's where shots are fired do not result in the death of the attacker.

What I do know is that someone in the US will use a gun to save their life today, and someone else will lose their life wishing they had bought a gun.

Even if DGU's are as low as 48,000, that's far more innocent law abiding people that guns save than are victim to.