Are revolvers the most reviled of firearms available?

So enlighten me. Start with showing with showing evidence of any post I made anywhere where I discussed Clinton’s and Yellowcake in any context, prior to your assertion “You seem to think so when you thought Clinton’s were ok with selling yellow cake or whatever crappolla you were making up” in post 1497 or admit you made that fictitious reference to something I said up. Then, show the evidence of the slander you spewed that the NRA performed as a conduit of funds for Trump and that Trump is speaking for the Russians. What specific policies have the Russians had Trump implement to their benefit and supporting evidence. Show what laws the NRA has allegedly broken and the evidence for that. Show how the NRA shifted money in their accounts to hide anything...I gave you a link to their 2016 financials and the Open Secrets site that tracks lobbying money...or show any documents from IRS tracking of non-profit organizations.
Otherwise, I figure the blinders you refer to are those that won’t accept the unsupported allegations suggesting wrong doing and slander you spew as fact and meaningful of anything nefarious. Or, is the issue I haven’t been convinced to follow the faith of hate?
Please enlighten.

 

Can you explained how our economy is 1/3 based on quantum mechanics and the remaining 2/3 is dependent upon upper ‘lever’ science? Please share and enlighten with your superior knowledge or are you just blowing Bose-Einstein condensate? Is the 1/3 based on the Standard Model or an extension of it?

 

If the claim being made on the part of yourself is that the united states leads all other so-called "developed nations" with regard to firearm-related incidents, then it is necessary to demonstrate whether such is a new and recent trend, or has instead been a universal constant throughout history.

The number of firearm-related deaths in the city of Chicago, in the state of Illinois, is all that needs to be cited to prove the claim presented on the part of yourself is factually incorrect. Along with the findings released by the ATF about how these firearm-related restrictions are ultimately useless in preventing the illegal acquisition of firearms from occurring.

 

And yet it cannot be demonstrated by yourself that it was these aforementioned firearm-related restrictions, and only those firearm-related restrictions exclusively, that led to any measurable or perceived decrease in firearm-related incidents in the various countries that implemented such. What is being demonstrated on the part of yourself is nothing more than the causation/correlation substitution fallacy, and a poorly disguised one at that.

Unless each and every single country brought up for comparison possessed the exact same type of society, with absolutely no individual variables from one another, there is no legitimate comparison that can be made.

 

Alloy frame 5 shot 38 special revolvers (ideally with Crimson Trace grip) are particularly popular with women as a CCW firearm.

The plus of a wheel gun is reliability. Unless stored in high humidity, they can be forgot for a decade never fired and still be reliable. They don't jam nor lock up if a misfire. It is exceptionally rare in personal defense for non-police to fire more than 5 rounds.

 

Re:

No, "we" are not talking about industrialized democratic nations, you are choosing cherry picked countries which have little in common with the US and nothing like our Second Amendment.

There are over 80 countries in the world with absolute gun bans that have failed to give them lower homicide rates.

If absolute gun bans don't work in over 80 countries, what makes you think that less than an absolute gun ban would work in the US.

Why not compare America to the world's other superpower, Russia or our Southern neighbors, South America etc

Please consider reading the article from which I noted a brief excerpt:

"The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States.
They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan."CONTINUED

 

Such firearms are a poor choice for a personal defense weapon, unless the individual utilizing it qualifies as being a firearms expert. Its lightweight construction, poor sight radius, significant recoil, and excessively heavy trigger pull, render such a firearm more a hindrance to defensive use than a benefit unless the individual utilizing it is highly skilled and engaged in regular practice.

 

I don’t have to prove anything. The stats speak for themselves. Industrialized countries with stronger gun laws have fewer gun deaths. You’re little diversionary rabbit hole is a red herring. We already have stronger laws in many states with similar results. Because you don’t seem to recognize that and still wonder if such laws are constitutional, shows a lack of understanding of constitutional law. I’m know expert, but I seem to know more then most gun cultists.

 

Stronger gun laws correspond to fewer gun deaths in countries most like us....
I really don’t care about your bogus idea of the 2a. It’s not absolute.

 

I have to demonstrate nothing. These are facts.

 

What was the measured effect of those new laws on old homicide rates? The statistics do not speak for themselves. When the UK allowed handguns and Australia allowed semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, the ratio of US to their homicide rate was the same or worse than it is now, implying no effect for Australia and a worse result for the UK, as their current homicide rate is higher than it was in the four decades before they banned handguns. That's pretty basic stuff. It's not a rabbit hole. It's how science works - what was the measurable difference in the system following the introduction of a new variable.

Please actually show how the gun bans in the UK and Australia would be Constitutional, given that handguns, repeating shotguns and semiautomatic rifles are in common use for lawful purposes in the United States and thus protected by Heller and Caetano? If it's that easy to show, why have you refused time and again?

 

Sure....can you think of any product that is transported by a transportation system that does not use satillite navigation.
How many people do you know that do not communicate using cell phone technology or have never been to a modern hospital.
There are no modern public and private goods including foods that does not use modern science in their material composition. Even our wood products and the glues and all building materials that make 3/4 of the laminates use science to govern every regulation required for all building and construction.
Quantum theory is the physics of the very small without which, it’s hard to come up with any product or service in our economy that isn’t touched by it.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/everyday-quantum-physics/

We have a president and I see ar least one other that doesn’t get it.

https://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/why-banking-needs-quantum-physics

https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-quantum-electronics.htm

Banking and the market relies on quantum mechics as does any ATM and Amazon. Literally, our entire economy is now dependent upon upper level science now including quantum theory. That 1/3 is generously conservative.

 

More ya da ya da.
Totally inrelated to two simple facts. Gun rights are not absolute and fewer gun regulations corresponds to more gun violence in like countries and our states in general.

 

Yep, I figured you try to take the tac that if everything is composed of particles described by the Stanard Model, then you could make your statement true. But, you’ve managed to throw crap again trying to simulate you know something when you don’t. I guarantee you wouldn’t be able to hold a credible discussion about quantum mechanics with me without taking considerable time to try to pull answers from sources you don’t understand. In that regard I suspect you are on exactly the same level as Trump. If knowledge of even the issues the debate about the nature of the framework for a complete model that describes what encapsulated by the term quantum mechanics is required to be president, or to serve in the legislature, I doubt if a single member of Congress could qualify, nor would you. You keep digging a hole deeper and deeper.

I am silll waiting for you to admit you made up me making some reference to the Clinton’s and Yellow Cake. That itself, exemplifies in a nutshell, the intellectual dishonest in which you trade.

 

And you can more easily control the litter they generate.
Though my primary carry guns are a Glock 43 and 26, if a regulation said we could have only one firearm, I’d keep the Smith airweight for the reasons you state.

 

No one firearm in particular is a good or bad choice. It’s the one you are most comfortable with. A snubby can be every bit as accurate as any small auto and unless it’s a DAO, gives you a safe reliable choice in single or double action. It also has the inherent safety of not having to be chambered and not having a safety while still being relatively safe. For wilderness carry, the stainless revolver is preferable. For getting into action quickly , it’s second to none.

 

More yada. Please stay on point. We’re talking about gun deaths and gun regs. We need more of the regs and fewer of the deaths.

 

Sidestepping, trying to shed responsibility for having to defend your posts, eh?
Still haven’t shown where I posted anything about Clinton’s and Yellow Cake... just hoping your bit of dishonesty gets by passed, eh?
As for Quantum Mechanics, you shifted into that discussion to launch an insult as you did earlier with your unsupported spurious allegations in regard to the NRA and Russian influence over Trump, then basically trying to dodge having to defend your posts by essentially dismissing the discussion by saying I had blinders on.
You dug a deep hole, still diffing, hoping no one notices while you continue to dig.

Btw, the ‘yada, yada, yada response is a familiar response of another poster that wants to bypass a discussion when there is no room to run. Opps.

 

You’re the one who asked about something you completely don’t understand. Don’t ask if you don’t want an answer you don’t like.
Clinton yellow cake ? Another false diversion. You republicans had a Clinton for six years of investigation. No one showed anything. She was never president and never had any immunity.
You had control...and showed nothing. Complaining about the Clintons is all fraud.

 

The article I cited(1) apparently went right over your head just as you are obviously unable to refute my assertion.

Re:

"countries most like us" is a completely subjective term fraudulently employed by hoplophobes to cherry pick dissimilar nations with more accessible health care / mental health care systems and numerous other differences.

Since there are no other countries with anything like our 2nd Amendment, it is pointless if not fraudulent to attempt to compare the US to other countries that are in no way similar to the US.

America has a violence problem that needs to be addressed before undertaking another fatally flawed attempt to micromanage inanimate objects ("War on Drugs", Prohibition etc).
The best way to address America's violence & rage problem is by more accessible & affordable Mental Health Care.

Re:

The 2nd Amendment was here long before you were born & will be here long after you're gone.
Perhaps you'd be happier in a nice, safe totalitarian country with absolute gun bans that don't work.
Meanwhile, with the current make up of SCOTUS, the 2nd Amendment isn't going away.



(1) "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries
EXCERPT "The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.

Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world.

They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so.

They never acknowledge that when factors beyond per capita GDP are considered, it makes little sense to claim Sweden should be compared to the US, but not Argentina. Such assertions ignore immense differences in culture, size, politics, history, demographics, or ethnic diversity. Comparisons with mono-ethnic Asian countries like Japan and Korea make even less sense"CONTINUED

 

Does any other country in the world, absolutely any of them, possess the same numbers of unregistered firearms in private circulation as the united states?

Nor has anyone ever claimed otherwise. But "not absolute" does not even come close to meaning next to nonexistent. "Not absolute" means nearly absolute, as well as nearly unlimited.

 

At one point in the history of mankind it was "fact" that the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. In fact these "facts" were so firmly believed, anyone who dared to believe otherwise was murdered for the act of having doubt.

Simply because something is accepted as fact, does not actually mean that it is fact. The claiming of fact on the part of yourself is not evidence, therefore the claim must be demonstrated and proven.

 

Current regulations are being ignored by the public, the criminal element, and even the prosecutors. New ones will be no better, so there is no point in even trying, as they will not lead to fewer firearm-related deaths.

 

Well, more guns does not seem to result in fewer gun crimes as proposed by gun cultists. If that were true, we’d be a safer nation. .
With the most lax laws, we’re in a league of our own in gun violence compared to similar democratic numbers. Basic facts.

 

No other country has the gun lobby pouring millions into their election system, many donations from our adversaries. The GOP is the server and the NRA is the conduit to this despicable situation. But, what else can we expect from a group that promotes supports continued illegal gun sales to profit their donors.