More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[kallend 1,622]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

 

I would note that the REASON we do not have even better data is that republicans have managed to successfully cancel any such research.  They know what it will show, and they do not want that information out there.  For them, ignorance is far preferable to certainty.

"I love the poorly educated."

[billvon 2,391]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

https://apnews.com/article/mass-killings-record-gun-violence-0174103c37756fe4d247fd15cd3bc009

"Six months. 181 days. 28 mass killings. 140 victims. One country."

We are now at one mass shooting a week.  GO USA!

[Phil1111 910]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

...I have absolutely no doubt that you would consider any research that shows that defensive gun use is not as prevalent as you imagine it to be "unreliable."  ....

Its the cornerstone of the big lie of the gun lobby in the US. Yet many studies have been done with lots of empirical evidence. The feigned level headed, reasonable gun owner lays the same line of B.S. all the time.

"Hemenway, David.  Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates.  Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.  1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David.  The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events.  Chance (American Statistical Association).  1997; 10:6-10.

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David.  The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?  Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.  1997; 16:463-469."

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

I was commenting on, and the article addresses, the fact that there are little to no credible stats on self-defense gun use. Yes, when the gun is fired and someone is shot the data is there. The experts agree that when no one is shot the data is not available. 

We agree on the rest of the comments.

That raises the same ole questions. What legal and effective measures can be used to limit access to guns for people that should not have them while allowing the other 98+% of law-abiding people to have them?  A number of suggestions have been made. One problem remains, criminals don't follow laws.

Hi Bill,

Re:  people that should not have them

I am interested in your definition of these people.

That old horse-puckey about mental illness IMO just does not cut it.  I think that the majority of the mass shooters would never fail any mental illness testing.

It is a LOT harder to get someone classified as mentally ill than most people think.

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi folks,

I hope that this decision does not get over-ruled:  Federal judge rules Oregon's new gun safety law Measure 114 is constitutional (msn.com)

Jerry Baumchen

[normiss 622]

On 7/14/2023 at 10:55 AM, billeisele said:

I was commenting on, and the article addresses, the fact that there are little to no credible stats on self-defense gun use. Yes, when the gun is fired and someone is shot the data is there. The experts agree that when no one is shot the data is not available. 

We agree on the rest of the comments.

That raises the same ole questions. What legal and effective measures can be used to limit access to guns for people that should not have them while allowing the other 98+% of law-abiding people to have them?  A number of suggestions have been made. One problem remains, criminals don't follow laws.

Which is why we don't have criminal laws, traffic laws, federal laws, blah blah blah.

We are a nation of laws, there are a number of laws, some on the books, than need to be enforced, enacted, and added.

No citizen should have access to military grade weapons. Rifles that can kill and injure hundreds in mere minutes should not be on our streets. Now you respond with "but the criminals", and I reflect back to the enforcement of laws. When someone is caught with those types of weapons, they can spend a large portion of their life reconsidering their choices in life.

Someday, a mass killing will likely impact the majority of us. This WILL be addressed.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

On 7/14/2023 at 7:55 AM, billeisele said:

One problem remains, criminals don't follow laws.

Is it your position then that the criminals in every other developed country do follow the laws? If not, then how would you account for the amount of gun violence in America?

[kallend 1,622]

On 7/14/2023 at 9:55 AM, billeisele said:

One problem remains, criminals don't follow laws.

That argument can be used against any and all laws.

Pretty stupid argument, really.

[Phil1111 910]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

That argument can be used against any and all laws.

Pretty stupid argument, really.

Gun owners used to suggest that an armed society is a polite society as well.

[Phil1111 910]

15 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Is it your position then that the criminals in every other developed country do follow the laws? If not, then how would you account for the amount of gun violence in America?

Every true republican gun owner knows the world only exists on the southern border. Since most Mexicans are rapists, drug dealers, gang bangers and murders. Protecting their women by stockpiling guns is a rite of passage for republican males.

[wmw999 2,119]

44 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Gun owners used to suggest that an armed society is a polite society as well.

I think it’s really that an armed society is a scared society. And that’s OK with the armed people, because it’s them that the unarmed are scared of. And from that position, it’s hard to tell the difference between scared and polite, and, well, it doesn’t really matter if you’re armed, does it?

Wendy P. 

[Phil1111 910]

24 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I think it’s really that an armed society is a scared society. And that’s OK with the armed people, because it’s them that the unarmed are scared of. And from that position, it’s hard to tell the difference between scared and polite, and, well, it doesn’t really matter if you’re armed, does it?

Wendy P. 

In America fear is a real if not the main motivator for gun sales. Scared for gun owners and wannabe gun owners fails to accommodate the idea that they could be the dead one after a gun battle. i.e. few gun bearing men think that perhaps they should run if a shootout starts near them.

IMO polite is just a term from the old western movies where a six gun on the hip encouraged polite discourse in the saloon. Reality seems to be that a gun in the back pocket drives the idea that other aggressive drivers deserve a bullet in the window to teach them courtesy. That an perceived insult deserves the brandishing of a gun to force an apology or to put the other guy in his rightful place. Which of course all goes wrong when the other guy also pulls a gun. Or a hothead uses the gun to reconcile that perceived insult.

[wmw999 2,119]

40 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

IMO polite is just a term from the old western movies where a six gun on the hip encouraged polite discourse in the saloon

Old westerns are, maybe, an example of the idealization of a life with simple rules that “everyone” understood; a comforting time in some ways for people who want to know what they do and think is right and/or wrong. Answers were pretty easy in westerns  

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,297]

5 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I think it’s really that an armed society is a scared society. And that’s OK with the armed people, because it’s them that the unarmed are scared of. And from that position, it’s hard to tell the difference between scared and polite, and, well, it doesn’t really matter if you’re armed, does it?

Wendy P. 

Free speech cannot exist coequally with armed speech. That's the plain and simple bottom line: if you are packing a pistol or shouldering your AR-15 sane folks will say nothing before risking a momentary excitation of the reptilian part of your brain. Thus the Second Amendment never give an inch, open carry, easy concealed carry, crowd are by definition anti-free speech.

Where engaging in concealed carry when visiting a house of worship to a supposed peaceful, saving, God fits into that particular brand of confusion is another mystery.

[wmw999 2,119]

I agree

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,391]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Free speech cannot exist coequally with armed speech. That's the plain and simple bottom line: if you are packing a pistol or shouldering your AR-15 sane folks will say nothing before risking a momentary excitation of the reptilian part of your brain. Thus the Second Amendment never give an inch, open carry, easy concealed carry, crowd are by definition anti-free speech.

I will point out that none other than Ronald Reagan was fervently pro-gun until the Black Panthers started showing up openly carrying guns during their protests.  Then Ronnie couldn't sign gun restrictions into law fast enough.

Gun advocates do not like being on the other side of that equation.

[billeisele 122]

On 7/15/2023 at 5:24 PM, JoeWeber said:

Is it your position then that the criminals in every other developed country do follow the laws? If not, then how would you account for the amount of gun violence in America?

Joe - No.  We've been all over this subject, many times. You and everyone else know that there are multiple reasons for gun violence. The one some like to grab on to is the access to guns. It's convenient for them to ignore the other reasons. IMO, that's unfortunate. It's as if there's no solution to those problems. 

Read an interesting article this weekend. It said that if the government really cared about citizen safety they would ban cigarettes and do something serious about stopping drugs.

CDC says 480,000 smoking deaths annually with 41,000 from second hand smoke.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/diseases-and-death.html#:~:text=Cigarette smoking is responsible for,resulting from secondhand smoke exposure.

NIH says in 2021 there were 106,000 drug overdose deaths

https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates#:~:text=Overall%2C drug overdose deaths rose,overdose deaths reported in 2021.

Those two account for 12 times more deaths than guns. If you remove suicide (54% of gun deaths) then drugs and smoking are 28 times more deaths.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

 

Round and round we go, nothing changes. 

If certain guns, magazines and other gun accessories were outlawed do you think that criminals would stop having them and using them against others? 

[billeisele 122]

On 7/14/2023 at 5:45 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

Re:  people that should not have them

I am interested in your definition of these people.

That old horse-puckey about mental illness IMO just does not cut it.  I think that the majority of the mass shooters would never fail any mental illness testing.

It is a LOT harder to get someone classified as mentally ill than most people think.

Jerry Baumchen

Jerry - Completely agree. There are some people that would be denied a gun but you are right, many others would not. No easy answers.

[kallend 1,622]

15 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Joe - No.  We've been all over this subject, many times. You and everyone else know that there are multiple reasons for gun violence. The one some like to grab on to is the access to guns. It's convenient for them to ignore the other reasons. IMO, that's unfortunate. It's as if there's no solution to those problems. 

Read an interesting article this weekend. It said that if the government really cared about citizen safety they would ban cigarettes and do something serious about stopping drugs.
. . .

 

Ooooh - yet another diversion.

Addressing one problem  does not preclude addressing another.

 

[Phil1111 910]

14 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Jerry - Completely agree. There are some people that would be denied a gun but you are right, many others would not. Many easy answers. Just takes political will and action

FIFY

[billeisele 122]

2 minutes ago, kallend said:

Ooooh - yet another diversion.

Addressing one problem  does not preclude addressing another.

 

Yet still no intelligent answers or adult conversation. No surprise.

[olofscience 420]

34 minutes ago, billeisele said:

If certain guns, magazines and other gun accessories were outlawed do you think that criminals would stop having them and using them against others? 

Yes.

 

Mostly, at least. Here in the UK, the most recent mass killing was a man stabbing 2 people in the street in Nottingham. Wouldn't even make the news over there.

[Phil1111 910]

40 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Joe - No.  We've been all over this subject, many times. You and everyone else know that there are multiple reasons for gun violence. The one some like to grab on to is the access to guns. It's convenient for them to ignore the other reasons. IMO, that's unfortunate. It's as if there's no solution to those problems. ....

Round and round we go, nothing changes. ....

 

20 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Yet still no intelligent answers or adult conversation. No surprise.

When you stop lying and deluding yourself. The answers will still be the same ones every other country in the world has used to solve this same issue.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Phil1111

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

 

When you stop lying and deluding yourself. The answers will still be the same ones every other country in the world has used to solve this same issue.

But hey, ‘merica is different. It’s people are “special”. God’s newly chosen. 

[JoeWeber 2,297]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Joe - No.  We've been all over this subject, many times. You and everyone else know that there are multiple reasons for gun violence. The one some like to grab on to is the access to guns. It's convenient for them to ignore the other reasons. IMO, that's unfortunate. It's as if there's no solution to those problems. 

Read an interesting article this weekend. It said that if the government really cared about citizen safety they would ban cigarettes and do something serious about stopping drugs.

CDC says 480,000 smoking deaths annually with 41,000 from second hand smoke.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/diseases-and-death.html#:~:text=Cigarette smoking is responsible for,resulting from secondhand smoke exposure.

NIH says in 2021 there were 106,000 drug overdose deaths

https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates#:~:text=Overall%2C drug overdose deaths rose,overdose deaths reported in 2021.

Those two account for 12 times more deaths than guns. If you remove suicide (54% of gun deaths) then drugs and smoking are 28 times more deaths.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

 

Round and round we go, nothing changes. 

If certain guns, magazines and other gun accessories were outlawed do you think that criminals would stop having them and using them against others? 

Thanks Bill, I'll put you down with the never give an inch, armed speech over free speech is the American way, and because what about something else crowd. Honestly, you guys kill me.