Conceited CCW holders

stop being silly

 

You implied there was a history of innuendos... That would require more than one (no matter how apt that one was).
I believe you'll find it was your counterparts who have posted pics of gun babes and made references to "gun porn", not me.

Your double standards are getting old.

 

those are others, not me. To use such attacks against me is most inappropriate and lack maturity.
"They did it to me, so I do it to you."................. what a lame excuse

 

What are you babbling about? You're the one attacking me for "making innuendos" when you clearly ignore the same behavior from others... This indicates your real issue is a personal one, and this off-topic attack is all you have since you can't rationally debate my on-topic position. So transparent.

 

are you denying making sexual innuendoes to a post of mine? if you are, I can always go back and pull it up again...... only the gun haters use terms like stroking your gun/weapon. That never comes from our side, but only your side of the fence. You don't like to see scantily clad women?
you have already derailed this hoping to score brownie points.......and again, since you do not care for my existence, wtf makes you think I care about yours?

 

Here's a couple. Want more?

 

Disagree with your assumption. To the contrary it would make news far and wide.

The only people who have had their rights restricted/taken (excuse credited to the acts of criminals) are law abiding folks. Where do these mass shootings take place but predominately in areas where the law-abiding has been restricted from carrying a sidearm.

It is logical to arm law abiding citizens in presently (and often) arbitrarily legislated geographical locations that create a target rich unarmed victim environment for criminals.

AND I am for training and education in the art of self defense and the accessories that allow reaching that goal successful. By goal I mean no victims hurt or lost to criminal behavior.

 

You've never heard the expression that someone is "compensating for something"?
Implying that someone is compensating for something might imply something about their "sexual organs", but is not sexual innuendo as it has nothing to do with sex itself.

Even if it were, please illustrate that such comments should be vilified as sexual innuendo when pics of gun babes face no such scrutiny.
Your perspective reeks of hypocrisy.

 

You are still recycling those incorrect claims.

Defensive firearm use overwhelms criminal firearm use, even the DOJ admits it.

Australia proves that removal of firearms does not reduce the crime rates, their violent crime rate went up 33% after the ban went into effect. Even murder increased for the 8 years immediately after the ban started.

I know its hard to honestly question and then abandon a false philosophy, but give it a try and look at the data, gun control doesn't work.

 

I'd be interested in seeing a DOJ source for this claim, as the only one I was able to find (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf) provides several figures, and briefly makes mention of Gleck's debunked figures.

Other credible sources provide a very different picture: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

You do understand that "violent crime" in Australia is totally different to "violent crime" in the US, right?
https://theconversation.com/faking-...-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678

I'd like to see a source of this claim too, to illustrate that per capita murder rates went up. It would also be interesting to understand why that alleged trend didn't continue beyond 8 years, and why you call Australia's policy a gun ban given that they have as many gun owners now as before their gun control legislation was passed.

Ditto.

 

That's a 1997 report, a bit out of date. And the report does not debunk Kleck's data, it merely questions the entire body of defensive gun use statistics. Read the report before making comments.

Try this study, the result of obama's 2013 executive action after Sandy Hook http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

Despite being funded by tax payer dollars, the report isn't free like so many other reports - that's because the report didn't conclude guns are a wildly dangerous item with no value as obama and the banners wanted.

From the report:

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.​

Look, it even included your 1997 reference as an outlier and a lower than low bound of defensive gun uses.

Yea, a "report" by Hemenway, a rabid gun banner funded by the gun ban lobby. Just because he works at Harvard means nothing. Former NYC Mayor Bloomberg literally bought the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health - that's the actual name, Bloomberg was added after Bloomberg donated $350,000,000 to the school, a school which now serves as the Bloomberg anti-gun research arm. Amazing how after such a a massive "donation" all their research is in line with Bloombergs rabid anti-gun paranoia.

Wow, your report talks about cherry picking data and then does just that. Talk about hypocritical.

For example, the report writes:

"For the record, in Australia firearms are now used less in robberies, homicides and kidnappings than they were in the 1990s."​

That's true, the homicide rate in 2012 is lower than in the 1990's, and there are fewer homicides etc with firearms. But comparing 2012 to the 1990's also allows the person to skip over the increase in homicide, robberies, kidnappings from 1996 through 2004+.

Terrible article, clearly biased.

The data can be found at the AUS Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...e Issues&prodno=4510.0&issue=2011&num=&view=&

Here is the homicide and violent crime rate per 100,000 people

View attachment 30850

View attachment 30851

AUS has gun owners, they are limited to the govt approved guns. Australia in the 1995 legislation banned almost every semi-automatic center fire rifle and shotgun, many pump action shotguns, and handguns except 38 and 9mm calibers. Owning a firearm requires permission from the govt and various trial periods, and you have to present a need for a firearm.

 

I commend your effort here, Battle3! Reading through this thread, it remains abundantly clear that truth, rational thought, and the weight of statistics are not the subjects that the antis are interested in.
It's nearly impossible for me to say anything more without hurting some feelings.
Case in point! I tried to give you reputation points for your post, but the board sez that I can't, until after I "spread some reputation around". This is tantamount to telling me that I can't have $100 in my pocket unless I give some to the undeserving.

 

I suppose you point out to everyone that's still quoting Kleck's data from 1994 that their information is out of date as well? After all, you're no hypocrite... right?

I didn't say that this report debunked Kleck's data, I said it made mention of his debunked data. Do you need further information on how that study was debunked, or are you already familiar with the flawed methods used in that study?

Proving that the study of this issue can be done, by government, without partisan politics?! Doesn't that contradict everything pro-gun folks have been fed/taught about government?

I've fixed the highlighting for you...

So tell me again where you get the impression that "Defensive firearm use overwhelms criminal firearm use, even the DOJ admits it."
The report you've provided clearly doesn't say that.
What it does include, though, is this:

In other words, many of the "DGUs" measured relate to a person pulling a firearm on someone despite not having been threatened, attacked or injured... Simply because they were afraid that the person might consider raping, robbing or attacking them. Of course, pulling a gun on a total stranger that's done nothing to provoke such paranoia is relevant to discussions of self-defense than it is to discussions about firearms in the hands of the mentally disturbed.

Right, like "Florida State University" is above such shenanigans, right?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/busine...ns-at-florida-state-university-raises/1168680

I know you'd like to believe that because it debunks your entire position, but in order to illustrate that the alleged spike in 1996 (which doesn't show up in the "Australian homicide rate" graph you provided has causation in the implementation of gun control - which is impossible to do since they still have the gun control and significantly lower homicide rate.

Goodie. As I previously said, I don't see the "spike" you're talking about in relation to homicides, and "violent crime" in Australia includes such a broad range of offenses that I'd like to get a better understanding of why you believe this is related in any way to gun control.

So what you're saying is they don't have the same variety of firearms available, and you actually need training and a reason to own one. How is that a total gun ban?

 

The authoritarian wants to tell you what to do and control your life giving you a crumb and saying, "Look you have everything you need. Why are you complaining?"

Much like a slave owner that says, "I provide you with food and housing. Why are you complaining?"

The only difference between the authoritarian and a slave owner is that the authoritarian actually believes they are helping you. What authoritarians fear or don't understand is freedom.

 

Who are you implying is the authoritarian in this scenario?

 

can I can I???? YOU
that was tooooooooooooo easy

 

So, my position that lawful people should have access to firearms, and steps should be taken to make it difficult for criminals to get firearms is somehow "authoritarian" and limits liberty?
Please explain how having armed criminals promotes liberty.

 

Because the only way to implement your proposal is to infringe the rights of law abiding people.

 

Are your rights infringed when you purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer?

If not, they wouldn't be infringed by following the exact same process for any other purchase.

 

Consider this scenario:

Bob received a valuable handgun that was willed to him when his grandfather died. It has never been registered or recorded in any database. He wants to sell it to Jim, a supposed collector, whom he met via a classified ad.

Can you detail the process, under your proposal, by which these two individuals would transfer ownership of this firearm, and how it would prevent transfer to a criminal?

 

Let us know how that would stop a criminal from stealing a gun or getting one off of a family member, where most criminals guns come from?

 

That was gonna be my next scenario.

Just to cut to the chase, there is no law that will deter the lawless. His proposal is to restrict the ability for the lawful to 'keep and bear' in order to minimize the transfer (intended or not) of those lawfully owned weapons to criminals. Bottom line is this: If you are going to allow the lawful to 'keep and bear' at all, the lawless will always have access to those weapons.

Any attempt to mitigate the flow of legally obtained weapons to the criminals by further restricting the lawful owners is pointless. It's like dragging your feet to try to stop a dump truck. Sure, you'll slow it down a little, and no doubt, every little bit helps. But in the end you don't really make a substantially positive impact on the problem, and you wear out a perfectly good pair of Birkenstocks.

 

Yeah, evidently some think that if they pass a law forcing in-State NICS checks on things like giving your wife a gun that somehow the criminal will steal a gun and then decide he/she better go pay a fee and transfer it at the nearest gun store.

 

AHA! Apparently TARGETING the gun-ban might be the solution: