Gun Control needs to be instituted

Do you know long guns, e.g. rifles and shotguns, are involved in about 6-8% of murders. Hand guns are the major weapon of choice for murders.

 

you keep complaining about a problem that really isn't what motivates your desire to harass honest people. and you have NEVER EVER come up with a constitutional and realistic solution to the problem you pretends motivates you. What you really want is to punish gun owners for generally opposing the hard left agenda you want

 

Have you EVER seen him propose anything that would actually decrease crime and would meet constitutional muster or would not create a complete rape of the bill of rights?

 

What tipped you off? Was it when he referred to self-defense by second amendment as vigilantism, illegal, against the Constitution?
(post 510)

 

racism inspired the Jim Crow gun laws. Racism inspired the Sullivan law in New York, racism inspired the "saturday night special" ban in the GCA of 1968. Racism still motivates lots of suburban whites on one hand and "black elites" on the other. Yuppies don't want blacks being armed, and black activists see LEGAL gun ownership as a right that conservative Christian middle Class white males enjoy and thus a right to be attacked.
https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29094/the-racist-roots-of-gun-control.pdf

https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29092/gun-control-white-mans-law.pdf

Gun-control efforts through the centuries have been propelled by racist and elitist sentiments.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/gun-control-laws-arent-about-preventing-crimes/

People who legally buy firearms from licensed firearms dealers, a group that, by definition, has a felony-conviction rate of approximately 0.0 percent. These are law-abiding people, but they also are, in no small part, the type of people who mash the cultural buttons of the big-city progressives who dominate the Democratic Party both culturally and financially. From that point of view, what matters is not that retail gun dealers and their clients are dangerous — which they certainly are not — but that they are icky.

 

I am not bragging but I doubt anyone on this board understands the law of self defense better than I do given not only have I tried several cases defending police officers in use of force cases, but I spent 20 hours testifying in preliminary hearings, grand juries and two trials concerning my use of force to stop a mugging. HE doesn't understand the term and I also know what vigilantism is. BTW Kyle Rittenhouse was NOT a vigilante.

 

I know that you are a top-notch expert on these matters and I appreciate what I've learned from you as a result. T/Y

I think many have preconceived biases. I think many let their politics rule them instead of thinking the gun issue through...

In many respects, the bias is developed because of our media. Look what they did to Rittenhouse! Judged him in their kangaroo court, and some readers lacking the critical thinking skills bought it. So, it is little wonder why he doesn't understand the why of it, what exactly the second amendment is protecting. Plus, far too many are under the impression government should be telling us what rights we should have. Um, we got away from that nonsense when we separated ourselves from Great Britain. Why the hell would we want to go back to that?!?

I have wondered why our population has become so willfully misinformed. Didn't they pay attention in their civics classes or are they really under the illusion that they can pull the wool over our eyes while they lecture "we don't think guns have a place in a civilized society". The irony of that quote, eh?

 

No, I can't say that I have. Mostly, just regurgitation of weak cliched arguments.

 

I don't think school curricula are the same as back in our day, Trix. Too busy teaching masturbration techniques to kindergarters, and putting condoma\s on zucchini. :Oh, and telling students not to tell their parents what they learned each day.

 

i grew up in an all white cleveland suburb, not until i got to high school was i around POC, this was the 1960s, i got addicted to Rx drugs quickly and spent my 21st birthday in prison, while keeping mainly to myself i did talk to the older black men who would vouch for me with younger blacks and i had no trouble...
when i did seek sobriety i found an old black vietnam verteran who told me he use to "hate" whity till he got sober, we remained best friend for over 20yrs till his death, i have always had an interest in politcs and lean towards FDR liberal, but i am not anywhere near as politicaly motivated in my older age

 

LOL. Codified law is not subjective.

Do you have anything to say about the incorrect statistics I pointed out from your original thread opening post on “military rifles” being a “significant” part of gun violence? The fact they account for about 3% annually on average of incidents is a STATISTIC.

Do you have anything to say about your claim the US has the highest rate of firearm homicide in the world? And that we beat number 2 by a factor of three?

In reality, we can all drive to a country that has a firearm homicide rate nearly 5 times our rate! And that’s a country with months of paperwork and background checks required before you can purchase a firearm at one of TWO sellers in the entire country. All firearms are registered with the federal government and calibers are generally restricted to .38 and under for handguns and .22 LR for rifles. Handguns must be kept/used only for home defense.

YOU presented not only incorrect statistics, but grossly inaccurate statistics. And in the OP of your thread!

Now on to your next “statistics”. Your images did not come through but I looked at your link to Everytown. Let’s see what you know about your link to start.

The first category in your link is a list of states labeled “National Leaders”. What makes them national leaders?

Also, what is your understanding of the terms “correlation” and “causation” in relation to statistics? Your link seems to infer causality from the limited data they “examine”. Do you agree with that inference and if so, why? Be specific.

 

If he had known it’s unlikely he would have posted such an easily debunked pull quote. But you never know. As @Turtledude points out, honesty and facts are not important to these folks.

 

Uh what was your response to his points?

 

a good summary
https://www.heritage.org/firearms/heritage-explains/bidens-gun-control-agenda

this is a point I have made several times about "high capacity magazines"

Whereas if you flip that and you look at the context of how a law-abiding civilian might use a so-called high capacity magazine, it's in a situation where they are already immediately being confronted by crime. Someone has broken into their home and they are that first responder, where that several seconds, when they're outgunned, when they're outnumbered, when their life is on the line, those several seconds of reloading could be very, very important to saving lives.

 

@Lucky1knows,



You posted a link. I’m asking you about that link. You posted no charts. Just a link.

Can you answer simple questions about a link YOU picked of your own free will and asked me comment on or not?

You haven’t studied the link, have you? Do you want to discuss the STATISTICS you linked to?

 

What you keep on putting aside is the fact that the idea of the OP is not based on ONE report, ONE statistic or ONE link. If you go to Google, there are hundreds of reports from all different sources and statistical evaluations that show that there is a big problem in the U.S. (versus the rest of the world) regarding guns, gun deaths, mass shootings, and gun control.

It does not matter if it can be found that there is a statistic or a study, or an evaluation that is right or wrong because there is overwhelming proof of the problem that exists here versus the rest of the world.

You will NOT negate the problem by showing some link or statistic being wrong.

As far as answering the question you ask about the link I gave to the article from everytownresearch.org, here is a link to how they came up with their numbers (https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/methodology/) and here is the link to Wikipedia's information about the company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everytown_for_Gun_Safety). Like I said above, trying to prove this article or any statistic is right or wrong is useless. The data about the OP's contention is OVERWHELMING. You are just trying to support your own desires and not seek the reality of the problem.

and by the way, keep trying to shoot this idea down. I have many more links to many more articles, data, and statistics that I can draw from to prove the point. You will run out of ammunition before I do.

Here is ONE MORE HORRENDOUS STATISTIC to deal with. There have been 43 mass shootings THIS MONTH (January 2023). FORTY THREE!!!!!!

Here is the link to that statistic https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

 

So you don’t read your links. You don’t care that every single one so far has been shown to be disinformation?

You said you wanted to discuss a specific link you provided. You chose that link. Please answer these questions. I’m uninterested in moving goalposts and other fallacies you keep reverting to.

The first category in your link is a list of states labeled “National Leaders”. What makes them national leaders?

Also, what is your understanding of the terms “correlation” and “causation” in relation to statistics? Your link seems to infer causality from the limited data they “examine”. Do you agree with that inference and if so, why? Be specific.

So far ALL your links contain disinformation. Yet you believe they are “proof” of something. Yet you can’t even state whether that “proof” relates to correlation or causation? Why?

At what point does one begin to question a narrative when EVERY source chosen to back that narrative is easily shown to be disinformation?

 

I really hate to point out misinterpretation of information but since you have mentioned this 3 times, I have to.

What they mean by "national leaders" is whether they have good gun control laws in place. Evidently, the States that have the best gun control laws are called "national leaders".............in gun control!

You mention that "You don’t care that every single one so far has been shown to be disinformation?". First of all, that is a false statement.. You mean to say that the charts (for example) the the U.S., since 2009, has NOT had 288 school shootings, while the 2nd nation only has 8? Is that disinformation?

You mean to say that the charts that show that the U.S. has 4-1 more guns per population than anyone else in the world? You mean to say that the rate of gun shootings and killings is not twice as much as Canada and 20 as much as UK? You mean to say that we are not the nation with a record number of mass killings using guns?

You have NOT proven anything wrong yet but even if you do prove one article, one statistic and one evaluation wrong, what about the other 99+ that say mostly the same thing? What about proving the overall objective of the OP wrong.

You think that proving one thing wrong negates the OP?

I am laughing at that idea?

 

What is “my desire” you speak of?

What do you believe your links containing misinformation and disinformation “prove”?

Can you quote me ANYWHERE insinuating there isn’t a PROBLEM?

Please refrain from fallacious arguments.

 

By the way and doing more research into the numbers given by everytownresearch.org that you are dissing.

Here is another site that is showing gun killings percentages per 100,000 population. In it, the original list that was shown, is proven correct. For example, Mississippi has at least 4-6 times more gun killings than California. Mississippi has very lax gun controls, while California has strong gun controls.

In the link, see the chart that is shown in colors of the entire U.S. and you will see that the Republican led States show more killings than Democratic led States. What do you say about that?

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

Are you able to say that you are wrong and are giving misinformation?

 

Let me answer your contentions one by one

1) your desire is to prove that I am offering misinformation on the subject of the U.S. having a big problems on gun killings, and gun control. In addition, your posts strongly suggest that if one thing is proven wrong, the entire OP must be wrong.

2) My links prove there is a problem that needs to be addressed, no matter if there is a error, mistake, or misinformation found among all the links, graphs, and articles given. .

3) The fact that not one single time you have stated that there IS A PROBLEM, suggests you believe it is not a problem. Not saying something is tantamount to believing the opposite.

 

Many of your assumptions are wrong.

1. There have not "always been police".

“It would be easy to think that the police officer is a figure who has existed since the beginning of civilization. That’s the idea on display in the proclamation from President John F. Kennedy on the dedication of the week of May 15 as “National Police Week,” in which he noted that law-enforcement officers had been protecting Americans since the nation’s birth.

In fact, the U.S. police force is a relatively modern invention, sparked by changing notions of public order, driven in turn by economics and politics, according to Gary Potter, a crime historian at Eastern Kentucky University.”
TIME MAGAZINE, How the U.S. Got Its Police Force, By Olivia Waxman, May 18, 2017.
https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/

2. In fact, gun control has always "made crime worse". Predictably crime surges when the targets of criminal predators are disarmed and rendered helpless.

“In 1997-98, there were just over 4,900 recorded crimes in England and Wales involving the use of guns, other than air weapons. The figure had climbed to 7,362 for the year ending April 2001. Home Office sources have indicated privately that 2001-02 statistics will show an increase along the same lines as previous years. A regional breakdown of the figures show that gun crime is overwhelmingly an inner-city phenomenon. In 2001-02 guns were used to kill 73 people, half of them in London or Manchester.”
THE INDEPENDENT, 8,000 a year: serious gun crime ***doubles*** under Labour, By Andy McSmith and Sophie Goodchild, 05 January 2003. (*** mine)
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=366560

3. It becomes easier for criminals to obtain guns under a strict gun control laws which inevitably make guns more useful for criminals. The black market for illegal guns flourishes under a ban.

The real world:

"Chris, a stocky but affable thirty-something South
Londoner recently retired from a career in armed robbery,
comes bounding back from the bar with a cheeky grin on
his face. 'It'll be about 20 minutes,' he says. 'Less time than
it takes to deliver a pizza and plenty of time for another
drink. Same again?'

We are sitting behind a busy pool table in the dingy annexe of
a pub on the outskirts of Catford which, according to Chris, is
one of the easiest places in the capital to buy an illegal gun. ...
Few will be surprised that the number of illegal guns used on
the streets of London is currently at an all-time high, with at
least two shootings and four armed robberies every day since
the start of the year...."
THE EVENING STANDARD, Welcome to gun city 2002, By Danny Brown, 12, April, 2012. (*** mine)
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/welcome-to-gun-city-2002-6302217.html

IMO, you should consider the above real world facts of life and revise your conclusions accordingly.

 

That is ridiculous. Giving the general public the "power to effectively defend themselves from violent attacks" is the opposite of vigilantism.

The people have to be disarmed before vigilantes can molest them. The KKK and other "vigilance" committees were made possible by the first gun control laws in America. An armed people do not have to put up with that kind of crap.

" 'We have been patient long enough. We are free men now, and we have submitted to such usage as long as we can.' And again they ask: 'What shall we do?' I assured them that this conduct was not sanctioned by the United States military authorities, and that it would not be allowed." 37

While the Negro was in power, most of the Southern states organized Negro militia. In South Carolina, 96,000 were thus nominally enrolled, and others in Louisiana and Texas in the militia and in the police. Nevertheless, the Reconstruction governors were afraid to use these militia lest they start race war, and the effort to arm and equip them efficiently was silently opposed. Usually it resulted that disarmed and unsuspecting black people were set upon by white forces superior in numbers, armed and disciplined, and with little chance of self- defense.”
BLACK RECONSTRUCTION IN AMERICA 1860- 1880, W.E.B. Dubois, introduction by David Levering Lewis, XVII THE PROPAGANDA OF HISTORY, the Free Press new York 1998. pp. 689. 690.

 

LOL! No one that reads my posts will find anything but harsh criticism for the RP.
RP politicians, are with few exceptions, at least as repulsive as their DP partners in crime.

Most Democrats are not the same. Most DP politicians are very similar. Black Americans remain disarmed by the same gun control measures imposed on them after Reconstruction. The DP, has always been the party of systemic institutional racism, ethnic cleansing and genocide in the US. The RP has, for the most part shown no real concern at all for the oppression of black Americans.

"By then, both parties had effectively abandoned integration as national policy, beyond what had already been achieved (and even that came under fire. in the Reagan/Bush administrations). Neither party pressed hard for further racial gains or pushed for enforcement of what had been done, and both treated racial aspirations largely as a patronage problem to be handled by Cabinet appointments and other political spoils. Most important, neither party was willing or professed to see the necessity to mount an attack on the economic trends that had created the inner-city ghetto and that also were keeping many whites and non-ghetto blacks in poverty and hopelessness."
THE NATION, Deserting the Democrats: Why African-Americans and the Poor Should Make Common Cause in Their Own Party, By Tom Wicker, June 17, 1996.
https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-18381645/deserting-the-democrats-why-african-americans-and