Here's your chance..

It's an advantage to the citizen in the matter of self defense.

For example, in San Francisco in the last week or so 1 man was stabbed to death, a successful businessman. Just yesterday another innocent man attempting to get homeless people to move off his mother's property was beaten by the homeless. In some jurisdictions like Austin, defending oneself has been criminalized by the enemy.

 

Not sure why this thread is still under discussion since post #6 drove a stake through it's heart.

 

Wow, what a political ranting diatribe that continues to criticize but offers no solutions, just offers excuses for you to be a 1-man nation unto yourself. I stopped reading after the first paragraph as it sounds like pure anger being spewed on every word.

I have an idea for you that will solve all your problems and allow you to be at peace with yourself and everything around you:




This island is for sale and there, you will have little to worry or complain about.

Staying here will keep you angry, upset, annoyed and without solutions as you alone cannot change anything.

 

For every example you can give me to back up your idea that guns are needed in the hands of the public, I can give you 10 examples (or more) of people that were killed because someone had a gun they should not have been allowed to have.

In addition, there are over 30 studies that have been made that show that more guns do not stop more crimes.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

I am proficient in the use of guns as I was a policeman when young. I have had no need for a gun in over 55 years and yet I am an opinionated person that does generate anger by those that think differently to me. What I use to defend myself is my brain. It has served me well throughout my lifetime. Not everyone has a brain though, and that may not work for others. Then again, people without brains are more likely to make a stupid mistake when carrying a gun and get themselves killed, simply because they had a gun, than not.

Nonetheless, I have to once again state my position on guns (which I have stated many times before). What we need is more gun control of who gets guns and what kind of guns they can get. Nothing more and nothing less. Doing this will prevent more deaths than would otherwise happen. An example here and there of the opposite view can always be found as exceptions are the rule. Exceptions are just that..........exceptions. If you make laws in an attempt to stop the exceptions, you are likely to do more harm as the norm will no longer be the norm, it will become the exception.

 

You are posting opinion pieces that fit YOUR narrative. Your second link was not addressed for these reasons.

1) There is NO evidence in existence to support the idea more guns cause crime and there is NO evidence in existence to support the idea more guns cause less crime. Both are suppositions based on observed correlation. I’m uninterested in either false premise.

2). I’m uninterested in opinion pieces based on studies selected to support a certain narrative. I’m very happy to discuss studies. But not opinions. Sorry. That’s why I did respond to the Philly study. When actual science is presented I usually read it and may or may not comment.

3). Many of the studies that opinion piece is based on I have debunked on PF before. You are on record here saying nothing can change your mind so pointing out facts to you is pointless. My response on the Philly study was to inform third parties it isn’t applicable to the general population.

There’s more but that should suffice.

No, people do not think the same everywhere. What a bizarre notion. If they did I would have the same laws in my state as exist in Chicago. And our firearm violence rates would be similar instead of drastically different. People like you can’t even conceive of a place like where I live. Where most kids own guns, but more kids are killed by granola bars than school shootings. Where I’m headed to one of my farms in another county in a minute with an AR-15 on the seat beside me. And if I for some reason interact with a sheriff deputy we will likely discuss what brand of suppressor I run instead of being ordered out of the vehicle and detained like would probably happen in Philly. We DO NOT think the same.

SMH.

 

Cry me a river Lucky, big tears and plenty of them. Your appeals to emotion are laughable.

 

Do more cops cause less crime?

I really don't know, but what I do know is that all the cops are carrying guns.

So, if you want to claim that more cops cause less crime then you must concede that it is, in part, because they are armed representatives of government. Its because cops have guns.

Government is a gun owner too. If the government wants less guns on the street the solution is simple- take governments guns off the streets.

Why doesn't government lead by example?

 

Is that YOUR ANSWER to my post? What a lame answer it is. I guess you cannot actually address the facts.

By the way and for your information, especially if emotion is not part of your life. Life is all about emotions. Love, understanding, care, sharing, enjoyment, pleasure are all emotions that drive people every day of their lives. These can be obtained without money, meaning that even though money is important, it is secondary in nature. Appeal to emotion is what drives people. At least drives those that have emotions. Some don't, or if they do, it is usually hate for those that do value emotions.

 

OK you are saying that probable cause is the same, but these other posters are arguing the opposite, that now there is no probable cause simply if you are observed with a concealed weapon. That seems a major difference.

 

It probably is .

I'm just pointing out that you were saying that before this law was passed it was illegal to carry without a permit and if an officer spotted a gun that that was enough to demand the ID

This law has not changed one iota of the fact that it is illegal for certain people to have guns.

So if before they thought people might be carrying illegally what's to stop them from thinking that people might be possessing and carrying illegally?

They have just as much probable cause now as they did before.

And if someone is actually concealing a gun it's not going to be seen because it's concealed.

You can ask the other posters but I am just arguing that if seeing someone with a concealed gun constituted probable cause to demand to see a concealed carry permit then why would it not also be probable cause to see ID because just like people that did not have concealed carry and should not have been carrying... There are also people that cannot own guns that should not be carrying

 

Probable cause included having a concealed firearm, since it was illegal unless you had a license. Now that isn't considered probable cause. Seems like a big difference.

 

But there are still people that cannot own and possess or carry a gun. If you're going to argue that it was probable cause before then it is no less probable cause now

 

Wow, in OTHER WORDS, your own personal opinion is what counts. Studies, examples, and common sense make no impression on you. Of course, you have not run ANY studies, have no examples, and show little common sense but you are totally comfortable in thinking you are right and everone else is wrong.

Duly noted.

What reason would anyone have to have a debate or conversation with you if you believe you know everything already? I can have that same scenario going to see a show or see a movie.

Here is a good clip about a "good guy with a gun" there to stop the bad guys with a gun.



and, is this what you want the U.S. to become?



In my opinion, trying to debate with you is a total waste of time. You are only interested in your own view of life.

 

Nothing but ad hom, zero substance rebuttal.

 

Nothing you posted in that post proved to answer the question the thread is based on.
I did not ask for a slew of left-wing anti-gun misinformation..... I asked for any evidence that this specific Florida law has caused an increase in any gun crimes and any other state that has passed the same exact law

 

Are you unaware that the existing laws about background checks when purchasing from a retailer have not changed? You must produce identification and wait 3 days for the FBI to run a background check before the sale can be completed.

 

"Perhaps" is a speculative word. Should we try the old adage about "try it, see it works idea" and do it without following any guidelines?

As far as guidelines, here is what to do when facing a decision. I don't see you doing any of those




and here is the link to that chart, which explains each step in detail.

https://www.umassd.edu/fycm/decision-making/process/

If after you do that, you still find that your point of view offers more benefits than consequences, let me know.

 

Well that escalated quickly.

 

Like I noted and you JUST PROVED once again. You already know everything and there is nothing anyone can do or show you that can change your mind.

By the way and due to your fast response to my post, you did not even bother to see the videos, did you?

 

I'm just commenting on your lack of rebuttal to his information. I have been reading the exchange between you two for several days now. Your last post towards him is a classic sign of conceding.

 

I’ve never claimed to know it all. That’s your strawman argument. I routinely admit I learn a lot from interactions on PF. I’ve changed my positions on certain things based on things I’ve learned at PF.

So much for your strawman. Studies very much count. Scientific studies are what I base most of my posting here on. They are what I base my livelihood on. I just told you I’m very happy to discuss studies.

I’m not interested in opinions. Sorry.

Please quote somewhere on PF I’ve claimed to know everything? Go ahead strawman artist. Go…

 

Really? Evidently you think that the law is followed by everyone, right?

Let me prove you wrong................EASILY

 

You are not proving anything except that some people may choose to ignore the laws.

You said that people are buying guns without a background check and they're not doing that legally at a retailer.

Federal law requires a 3-day waiting period with an FBI background check before an FFL can transfer the purchase to the consumer.

The fact that some people might take their chance and ignore the law does not mean that there is no law.

And your last CNN video there was a complete lie. They said he bought it legally.... No way 13 year old does not buy a rifle legally.

 

If I understand correctly, a cop isn't going to do that because simply having a concealed firearm is no longer probable cause.

 

That statement would only be true if you could truly say that the only people who will conceal carry guns are people who are legally allowed to have them to begin with.

The fact that that cannot be said to be true is still just as much perceived probable cause as before