BS: Guns in America

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 08:16 AM

Backwoodsman, The questions of why we hold diverse opinions might possibly be foundational and not pointless. For an example the loss of a loved one by criminal behavior can be most destructive . How one heals from such a loss is crucial in forming long lasting opinions.

Two choices after such a tragic loss is blame oneself (the ego rejects this) or blame others (most common)

Why we feel the way we do is possibly an important factor in learning about the gun debate. It is to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 01:23 PM

re assault weapons- I have no problem with the present ban on assault RIFLES, and feel it should be maintained. THEY are fully automatic, and have been limited since 1934. (as have sawed off shotguns and such)

In saying that, Bruce, you accept that it is right to interpret your Second Amendment in a way that allows for intelligent regulation of some kind of arms, and to see that as a fair reflection of the intentions of those who framed it. ( that is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme that the Second Amendment "did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

So your argument that the Second Amendments rules out doing that falls. What remains is identifying what kinds of arms should properly be outlawed by regulation, and how this should be done. Not an argument about principle, but about political decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 01:25 PM

That ruling was in 1939, in the case of the United States versus a Miller.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 08:40 PM

Like I said I hate the things too easy to modify into fully auto by bad guys I wouldn’t care if they tossed them all into the sea myself but other sportsman can disagree with me

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 09:20 PM

Bruce, did anybody go outside an confront the guy, or was everybody hiding?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 02:23 AM

I profess to be a pacifist, but I enlisted in the Army and I enjoy shooting guns and I'm good at it, and I'm fascinated by military technology. This subjects me to a lot of self-loathing, but what can I do? Oh, and I was a government investigator for 25 years or so.

Much as I'm fascinated by the workings of guns, I don't think I've fired one or touched one since 1973, when I left the Army. But I have to admit that for me, guns are really cool.

But it bothers me that I live in an area where people think guns are essential for protection, and I've done just fine since 1973 without a gun. I'm surrounded by too many people who think they need multiple guns to protect themselves from Government. Their fear of government and their gun purchases were multiplied a hundredfold when the Government was headed by a black man. I thought that frenzy would die down when Trump was elected and these people no longer had something to fear - but they're still buying guns.

I tend to make critical comments about the Gun Culture in the local newspaper, and sometimes I wonder if I'm crazy to do that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 10:54 AM

Yea joe even my range shooting friends get all ticked off at me when I say I wouldn’t own any type of ar it’s like blasphemy. I hunt I shoot targets what more do I want ugh

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 11:10 AM

Jeri,

There were three of us who confronted the "gentleman" He was in his own yard, was about 15 years younger and 5 inches taller than me, and claimed it was "culturally acceptable" for him in his ( former) country to beat his wife in public. We informed him it was NOT acceptable here, and that he should stop. With a garden machete about 10 feet away, next to the house, none of us felt comfortable after he mentioned we should stay out of his yard. We called the police- by the time they got there, he had dragged her inside. When the police knocked, they were told "everything was ok."
Given that no weapon ( just a leather belt; the machete was implied, but use was not stated ) was being used, the police declined further action.


What would you have done?





McGrath,

"So your argument that the Second Amendments rules out doing that falls. "

I think you have not read my posts here.

I HAVE argued that the laws being proposed

1. Do not remove guns from criminals
2. Do not prevent criminals from getting guns
3. Would result in a net increase in killings,
4. Prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves when the government has stated "( D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying) that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." "

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 12:45 PM

If I misread your posts, Bruce, I did not intend to, but I do not think I have. I wasn't addressing the k8nds of issues you indicate in that last post.

I was pointing out what seemed an inconsistency since It appeared that on the one hand you were holding the Second Amendment as undeservingly excluding government from imposing regulations on arms, and on the other hand accepting that in certain cases it did have the power and right to impose regulations.

The question as to what actual regulation structure can be justified is a different question, and obviously an important one. But the claim that the Second Amendment is an absolute barrier to all regulation is a barrier to discussing that question. It needs to be recognised that it has been settled long ago that it does not.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 01:43 PM

"holding the Second Amendment as undeservingly excluding government from imposing regulations on arms, "

Where have I made such a claim? Please go back and read my posts of 17 Apr 3PM. Do you see ANY reference to the 2nd Amendment there, or in my later pots?

It would be foolish IMO to apply excessive limits to the 2nd amendment unless one was willing to have the arguments applied to the other parts of the Bill of Rights, but that there is SOME limit to all of those rights is already recognized by SCUS rulings. NO freedom is absolute.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 03:48 PM

OK, I DID post this:

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 08:29 AM

1. Define assault weapon. ( serious request- does it have to be black with a handle on top?)

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/the-assault-weapons-ban-is-a-stupid-idea-pushed-by-stupid-people/

"This speaks to a state organized and regulated militia for public defense not to private individuals or groups of individuals arming themselves for their own purposes"

Not what the Supreme Court has said- Yes, that could be change, but so could Roe vs. Wade. Want to see which change would get more public support?

" high capacity ammunition magazines"

Let me see- In NY, that is more than seven rounds. They are already prohibited there.

In MD, anything over 10 rounds cannot be made, transferred, or sold.

Yet the Internet has the code to make 30 round AR-15 magazines with ANY 3d printer, and a bit of wire.


Hell, it takes 2 pipes, a nail, a piece of 2x4 and tape to make a shotgun. (We made a million or so to drop on France in WW II)

And a M97 trench gun will out shoot an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine in killing large numbers in a crowd. ( 9-11 30 cal pellets per round, 6+1 in the chamber rounds = 63 to 77 projectiles- Why do you think we used them rather than automatic weapons to clear trenches in WW I?)


"Nobody, but nobody, is trying to take away people's right to bear arms."

https://fee.org/articles/gun-control-advocates-are-finally-admitting-what-they-really-want/

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/02/left-will-finally-admit-want-repeal-second-amendment/


How about looking at the real problems that cause shootings, rather than attack those who legally and safely have guns?

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/26/march-lives-blames-everyone-except-failed-protect-parkland/

As for the NRA controlling anything,
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/19/want-gun-control-stop-calling-nra-terrorist-organization/

Maybe we should stop Federal funding of Planned Parenthood- how many do they kill with abortions each year??? AND they spend more than the NRA on lobbying.


At least admit you would NOT allow the rest of the Bill Of Rights to be interpreted as you have the 2nd amendment.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/20/lets-model-speech-control-on-gun-control/





Did you bother to read the clicky for the last point?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 05:33 PM

In answer to question 1) So you would convict all police of murder? Um, no, since almost no cops fire their guns or kill people, plus cops are not civilians, so why would you even imagine that the same rules apply.

In answer to point A that you can't shoot feathers, well duh. That's why I picked that example.

In answer to question 2) Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point. Who asked this question? I didn't.

And what that I said was opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 06:55 AM

"No freedom is absolute"

Absolutely true. My impression is that there are a lot of opponents of gun control who do not believe that is true. I apologise to Bruce for suggesting that he might have been one of those.

I think it would be better if arguments about such things should focus on what is right, rather than what is consistent with a manmade document cobbled together by disputatious upoliticians a couple of centuries ago, and which can in principle always be altered if necessary, though that may be difficult in practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 07:58 AM

"I think it would be better if arguments about such things should focus on what is right, rather than what is consistent with a manmade document cobbled together by disputatious upoliticians a couple of centuries ago, and which can in principle always be altered if necessary, though that may be difficult in practice."

As I have attempted to do. I have brought up the points that , to me, indicate the present laws being proposed will NOT have the desired effect, and will in fact increase the number of illegal killings. Those who disagree with me have not yet argued that I have errors in my statements.


Mrrzy,

"n answer to question 1) So you would convict all police of murder? Um, no, since almost no cops fire their guns or kill people, plus cops are not civilians, so why would you even imagine that the same rules apply."

If the ONLY purpose is to kill, then police who have guns are just waiting to kill people.



"In answer to point A that you can't shoot feathers, well duh. That's why I picked that example."

You don't make sense- if TARGET SHOOTING is a valid sport ( see Olympics et al) and feathers cannot be shot out of guns, then YOU premise is stupid.

YOUR POST:
-------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy - PM
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:12 AM

The purpose of a gun is not to prevent others from using one, it is to propel bullets into targets, but not the paper ones. There is no need for bullets to be propelled unless it is to penetrate flesh. That is, to kill or maim or mangle or hurt or damage or yes kill. You could shoot feathers if the point was to hit paper targets, so nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------




"In answer to question 2) Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point. Who asked this question? I didn't."

I asked that question, and ONLY Sean Fear has had the honesty to give me an answer. The claim is that the proposed laws will reduce illegal killings: I have presented reasons and factual support that they will not, that they will increase illegal killings, and that there are far more deadly things that COULD effectively be reduced if LIVES were of any concern.



"And what that I said was opinion? "
-----------------------------
The purpose of a gun is not to prevent others from using one, it is to propel bullets into targets, but not the paper ones. There is no need for bullets to be propelled unless it is to penetrate flesh.
-----------------------------
Nobody, but nobody, is trying to take away people's right to bear arms. That is gun-totin' propaganda.
-----------------------------

The above statements, made by you, are not factually supported- therefore they are either deliberate lies or opinion. I give you the benefit of the doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 10:21 AM

The only purpose of a gun is to kill and that is why cops so seldom use their guns, silly. Cops carry guns because it is their job to. Again.
What I said about guns making bullets go fast so as to kill is fact, not opinion. Why else would you need a bullet to go fast? You could shoot feaathers if you didn't care about hitting a target and damaging it terribly.
What I said about nobody trying to take everybody's guns away is also the truth. There is no current motion, pun intended, to repeal the 2nd amendment. Limit gun rights, yes; eliminate them, no.
Find a fact that condradicts me.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 11:17 AM

"The only purpose of a gun is to kill "

False statement.

" Cops carry guns because it is their job to."

No, they carry them to have a means to enforce their will on others, either by deadly force OR INTIMIDATION (Threat).

"What I said about guns making bullets go fast so as to kill is fact, not opinion"

They go fast so as to NOT fall down ( as much) due to gravity. Killing is YOUR opinion.


"What I said about nobody trying to take everybody's guns away is also the truth."

Your opinion. MANY of the anti-gun crowd have stated that is their aim. NOBODY means that even one would prove my point.

Have you even bothered to look at the clickies I have posted- there are examples there.

All the facts I have found contradict you.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 11:47 AM

So we're agreed on an important point of principle, Bruce. That's essential for any genuine discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 11:49 AM

OK, Bruce, make guns unable to kill people, and see how many people buy them. (When the argument gets too stupid, ...)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 11:59 AM

Jeri,

So, you are more interested in preventing law-abiding citizens from having guns than you are in reducing illegal killings?

I have shown that the GUNS can reduce the number of deaths when in legal hands.
I have shown that the EXISTING laws are not enforced, and if so would reduce the number of deaths,
I have shown that the other, GREATER number of deaths from SOLVABLE causes could be easily reduced by far greater numbers than the TOTAL killed by firearms with far less effort.



So your solution is more laws that can not be enforced on the criminals, have the opposite effect that is desired, and spend all the effort on this, rather than save lives?   

Can we discuss "Stupid"?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 12:09 PM

McGrath,

Yes. Too bad so many here are unable to even consider the reasons people do NOT agree with them.

I AM opposed to Bump-stocks- IMO they cross the line, too close to fully automatic operation. But the Obama BATF declared that they were legal, and now how do you get them back under control?

When a law that is EFFECTIVE, ENFORCEABLE, and not prone to political misuse is offered, I would certainly consider supporting it.

When the law is basically " We want everything to be the way we think it should be" WITHOUT consideration of the ACTUAL effects and possibility of enforcement, I cannot take those proposing it as other than anti-gun bigots, who would rather have people die than address actual problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 01:33 PM

However law abiding people may have been, at the point where they turn those guns on other people they have ceased to be law abiding (leaving aside those cases of gun killings where legitimate self defence is involved, which I understand to be a relatively small fraction of gun killings).

I believe that in a high proportion of gun massacres the weapons used had been legally purchased. So is the case in those instances where children have used their parents' gun with tragic result.

How about strict laws that all lethal weapons should be securely stored in a gun cabinet, with room for specific exceptions to that to be permitted for adequate reason, Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 01:49 PM

"believe that in a high proportion of gun massacres the weapons used had been legally purchased. "

Some, but not most Actually, the majority are not even on the books-

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/category/parts-and-accessories/parts-by-gun-model/ar-15/complete-build-kits.do

And the 80% receiver required to complete it is $69-100, no restrictions. Now IF YOU COMPLETE IT you are LEGALLY required to do things- but how many of those who make them do that? Another example of a law that has bo positive effect, but made someone feel good about letting criminals have access to illegal weapons.


"How about strict laws that all lethal weapons should be securely stored in a gun cabinet, with room for specific exceptions to that to be permitted for adequate reason, Bruce? "

Tell me the reasons, and I will say if I agree.

In Montgomery County, MD, they passed a law that anyone who had reason could carry a pistol concealed, IF THEY WERE LEGAL FIREARM OWNERS. Pay your fee, get fingerprinted, have a background check, submit the form to the County Police.
Of course, they did NOT mention that the ONLY ones who were given approval were those who were police officers, politicians, or could get the political approval from the politician ( IE, the campaign contributors.) A business many who regularly carried large sums ( $20-50 K to the bank for deposit, say) were NOT issued such permits, nor could they get police escorts to the bank. This was back in the 1980's.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 01:53 PM

I looked an indication of how often gun killings involved justified self defence. I found this piece from the LA Times which indicates it is a relatively tiny proportion, 269 in 2012, out of a total of nearly 30,000 gun deaths. And even that figure of 269 "justifiable killings" in that year 2012 would have included highly questionable cases such as that of Trayvon Martin, shot in February that year.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 01:54 PM

And the problem of hand-made weapons is NEVER addressed- as I said, it takes two pieces of pipe, a piece of 2x4, a nail, and some duct tape to make a single shot shotgun- and that will get you whatever the person you shoot ( guard, police officer, whoever) had available.



But it is far easier to get it "under the table ( ILLEGALLY) through the black market. No prosecutions, you know- they have political friends that keep them open.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 01:59 PM

1. LA Time has a bias-

The number killed by "gun deaths" includes suicides- the greater part of that 30,000. The PRESENCE of firearms often prevents shootings.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#167d218a5edc

Did you read that? Or do you ONLY read the articles that you agree with?


About a million abortions in 2012- how many of THEM were justified for medical reasons? Restricting which would save more lives?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 02:04 PM

As I have said, why would any restrictions on legal firearm owners reduce the illegal killings?
350,000,000 firearms - 30,000 deaths, INCLUDING accidents, suicides, and those "justified" killings as well as the illegal ones. Get rid of the 300,000,000 legal ones, and the number of deaths would INCREASE.

And there has been NO discussion of how to collect those 50,000,000 being held illegally. You want to have the Fergusson Police going through houses looking for illegal weapons? How many killings would that cause?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 02:11 PM

Re abortions- I would want the SAME restrictions as being placed on gun owners- Over 21, background checks, mental health records, court orders, et al. In matters of life and death, why ONLY pick on one small group? Shouldn't life and death criteria laws apply to all equally? Drivers, voters, jury duty, access to drugs... ALL are making choices that can kill- so they should be limited as well.


But then, how well has that worked, in the last 100 years?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 02:22 PM

Saying that there should be a law is NOT the same as coming up with an effective one. NO-ONE here has made any kind of proposal that has a chance of having any positive effect.

They passed a law making it illegal to kill people- so there should be no illegal killings according to the "Mudcat Logic"


BTW,

https://www.budk.com/ProductDetail.aspx?itemno=52%20PO2331


This is what the 3-d printer can give you, but you can get it already run off with NO restrictions.


Note this is illegal in some states ( including MD)- TO COMPLETE. ANYONE can order the 80% through the mail with no violation of the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 03:22 PM

I can't see how the fact that with a few DIY skills it'd be easy enough to cobble up some kind of gun is not too relevant. The same applies to bombs, but that doesn’t imply they might as well be on sale at your local gun store or supermarket.

Actually it'd probably be easier to make a bomb that could kill a trainload of people than to put together the simplest kind of firearm. I doubt if the suicide bombers in London back in 2007 could have made anything in the firearms much more lethal than a peashooter.

Abortion is an issue that I don't think really fits in here, Bruce. You seem to imply an automatic alignment between those who tend to be hostile to guns and those who feel happy about abortion, and the reverse, and that's not a safe assumption. I imagine my views about abortion are not too unlike yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 03:25 PM

A gun only deters when it is not being used. Duh. And Jeri, well put.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 03:33 PM

If the reasons people use guns illegally is NOT addressed, they will continue to kill, with or without the specific guns that are being banned. Since it is trivial to ( illegally) make an AR-15, and a high capacity magazine ( both illegal here in MD- So I guess we have to crime?) how does preventing legal law abiding citizens from having them serve to reduce killings? ( and it doe NOT, but that seems another topic not to be discussed here.)

Mrrzy,

You do not address my post- And the purpose of deterrence is still fulfilled by POSSESSION by law abiding citizens, which seems to be what you are saying should be prevented.

If discussion of REASONABLE, EFFECTIVE laws is stupid, then we have a bigger problem here than a few tens of kids being killed by guns THAT ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL!

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 03:34 PM

( both illegal here in MD- So I guess we have NO crime?)

Sorry for the typo

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 03:54 PM

"to put together the simplest kind of firearm. "

My earlier post:
And the problem of hand-made weapons is NEVER addressed- as I said, it takes two pieces of pipe, a piece of 2x4, a nail, and some duct tape to make a single shot shotgun- and that will get you whatever the person you shoot ( guard, police officer, whoever) had available.


And making them illegal gets them out of the market HOW? As I said, they are prohibited in MD. But if one wishes they can be ordered in parts, none regulated ( nor regulatable IMO) and the receiver ( illegally) completed. Passing new laws does what to make this harder or MORE illegal?
I have not opposed background checks and the FFL system. so the "supermarket" is a shitty comment.


But if I wanted a 20 round magazine, I would already be violating the law, so why shouldn't I go fully automatic, or use grenades? You make EVERYONE a criminal, and who will obey the laws you really want to have ( Like not killing people because of the color of their skin?)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 04:07 PM

Bombs are much easier to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 04:18 PM

But take materials that are a little harder to get in quantity. pipes, 2x4 and nails are easy- as is ducktape ( 2 rolls $6.99) Maybe 15 minutes work.


25 12 gauge 00 buckshot are $12.99 by mail.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 04:34 PM

Well it might be the rules about these things are tighter in the US than they are here. But the essential ingredients for a lethal bomb can be stuff that are remarkably easy to buy in the UK. I won't list them. You never know who's reading.

And I didn't need to do any research to find that stuff out. There've been too many loose tongued newspaper reports over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 07:42 PM

Thank you for not posting how in America we have enough of the craziest

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 05:14 AM

Some figures on the trend in mass school shootings:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180419131025.htm

OK, school shootings are pretty trivial as a risk to life (handguns are much more significant) but this sort of statistic does make the gun-nuts look even nuttier.

In fact the number of people killed by guns in the US is hardly significant at all. The real damage is to the people who own the guns - they're an instrument of political indoctrination.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 07:18 AM

I never said target-shooting was a valid sport. I never said people should not own guns. I have addressed your post. All I have said, repeatedly, is that guns are for killing (which is why they could deter) and not to pretend otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 08:04 AM

And I disagree with YOUR opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 08:19 AM

guns are for killing

That's not their main purpose at all. Their function in contemporary America is to instil hatred and fear in their owners, turning them into suckers for ideologues who validate hatred and fear.

Own a gun and you spend a large fraction of your life thinking about who you might kill with it, how and why. Your own infant children become deadly enemies who you have to fend off with locks and hiding places. And ultimately none of this helps since the person you're most likely to kill with it is yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 08:28 AM

The hatred and fear that I see is on the part of those who value their anti-gun stance above human life. They would rather have more illegal killings than admit that guns are NOT the problem.

Lack of enforcement of the existing laws and Liberal attitudes that do not provide for that enforcement ARE the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 11:09 AM

OK genius, explain to us how someone without a gun can shoot someone else. Of course guns are the problem, except in the tiny, brainwashed minds of gun-nutcases.

The hatred and fear that those of us with a fully-operating, un-indoctrinated brain see is on the part of those who value their pro-gun stance above human life.

You didn't answer my earlier question, Professor - You simply bombard us with a great deal of skewed 'logic' and 'evidence' supporting the away-with-the-fairies theories that the pro-gun propagandists have implanted in your brain but, as is always the case when gun-nuts try to 'prove' their argument, whilst proposing categorically their theory (and that's all it is - a theory, unproven) that fewer guns would result in even more shooting-casualties, you carefully sidestep the hard evidence of the actual, real-life experience of other countries where strict gun-controls and a reduction in the number of guns in circulation has produced precisely the opposite effect, and resulted in considerably fewer deaths.

So, I'll ask you again, Professor -

(1) if, as you propose, fewer guns in circulation and strict controls would result in more shooting-deaths, please explain why the UK, with strict gun-controls, has <100 shooting-deaths per annum (<1 per 650k head of population), yet the US has 30,000 per annum (1 per 12k head of population) - a death-rate in the US which is 54 times greater than in the UK.

(2) if, as you propose, fewer guns in circulation and strict controls would result in more shooting-deaths, please explain why, following the UK's first school-massacre in 1996 and the resulting immediate action by the UK government to strengthen firearm regulations and reduce the number of handguns (the type of firearm used in the attack) in circulation, there have been no further shootings of that kind here whilst, in the US over the same period, there have been 450.

Two straight questions. Two straight answers please. No links to skewed-logic on fear-mongering pro-gun sites, no cut-and-pastes, no bullshit - just your own words please, backed up by actual verifiable facts rather than NRA and gun-nut horse-puckey.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 11:23 AM

"OK genius, explain to us how someone without a gun can shoot someone else."

OJ,SFB,explain to us how someone without a car can drive over someone else.


You miss the point.

Explain how someone can defend herself from someone larger and stronger when the attacker doesn't wait for the police to arrive?

Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."


"away-with-the-fairies theories" are what YOU have presented: WHEN DO CRIMINALS OBEY THE LAW???


1- see my clicky- and learn some statistics:

The countries that have been most successful at limiting private, legal gun ownership are 1. Ethiopia, 2. Eritrea, 3. Haiti, 4. North Korea, and 5. Rwanda. Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Haiti all have higher murder rates than that of the United States. North Korea and Rwanda have slightly lower murder rates (4.4 and 4.5 per 100,000 respectively versus the United States at 4.88).

Let’s look at the countries with the highest concentrations of gun ownership (excluding Yemen and Iraq as active war zones). Guns per murder in those countries are,

    United States at 20,967,
    Uruguay at 3,777,
    Norway at 55,893,
    France at 19,747,
    Austria at 59,608,
    Germany at 35,647,
    Switzerland at 35,435,
    New Zealand at 24,835, and
    Greece at 26,471.

Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.

    El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
    Honduras (63.75/6200)
    Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
    Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
    Lesotho (38/2,700)
    Belize (34.4/10,000)
    South Africa (34.27/12,700)
    Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
    Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
    Bahamas (29.81/5,300)

It really doesn’t matter how you slice this data. The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates.


2. And how many crimes, such as knifings and other murders, have been PREVENTED in the UK by the presence of guns?   ZERO- so take that into account.

Which facts that I have posted do you think are false, and why?

**I** have provided my supporting facts- YOU have not shown any to be false.



And NO-ONE has posted anything that says they want to reduce illegal killings EXCEPT ME- The ONLY posts have been to restrict LEGAL LAW_ABIDING CITIZENS from having access to some ( or all) firearms.




To repeat:Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

So the UK is obviously filled with murderous killers ( 20 times as many murders per gun owned.)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 11:37 AM

BTW, we are not talking about the UK here- we are talking about the US, with 350,000,000 guns already out there, and effectively unlimited numbers of potential guns that can be made with a 3-d printer.


If you think the police can go through peoples' homes looking for guns, you have never read the US constitution. A warrant for each location is required, specifying the evidence that a cause for such search exists.

And there would be riots and thousands killed.


When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.

    El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
    Honduras (63.75/6200)
    Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
    Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
    Lesotho (38/2,700)
    Belize (34.4/10,000)
    South Africa (34.27/12,700)
    Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
    Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
    Bahamas (29.81/5,300)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 11:44 AM

"The Washington Post has determined that since the Columbine High shooting in 1999, 131 children, educators and other people have been killed (and another 254 injured) in assaults at schools. Oddly — but not surprisingly? — the Post doesn’t break down the number: lumping “educators and other people” into the count makes it larger.

Now, 131 is not a large number in a country of 350 million people; even so, inserting “only” before it would be considered callous; and of course people have also been injured in the attacks as well as killed. Nevertheless, as perhaps a few students educated in America’s public school system (which is run by and for the teachers unions), may be able determine, 131 is a far smaller number than 572; (Yale snowflake alert!) 572 is the average number of children (not including educators and other people) who are killed each year in automobile accidents, raising the question: Why isn’t 17-year-old Brianna Lee skipping school to demand safer driving in America?"

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 12:17 PM

Now, how about actual verifiable facts rather than anti-gun-nut horse-puckey from those here that disagree with me? Is it too much to get YOU to provide what has been demanded of me?


If you cared about reducing the killing RATHER than reducing the guns, you would be working to prevent teenagers from driving, drinking alcohol, having abortions, using drugs, and being hit by lightning.

ALL of which kill more than rifles do in a given year.




present law is that ANY child can be disposed of until it is of a certain age. ( see Roe vs. Wade)
"Based on available state-level data, approximately 893,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2016—down from approximately 914,000 abortions in 2015.
In 2014, an estimated 926,240 abortions took place in the United States—down from 1.06 million in 2011, 1.21 million abortions in 2008, 1.2 million in 2005, 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S (AGI).
In 2014, approximately 19% of U.S. pregnancies (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion.1
According to the United Nations' 2013 report, only nine countries in the world have a higher reported abortion rate than the United States. They are: Bulgaria, Cuba, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, Sweden, and Ukraine.*

*Though the UN lists China's official abortion rate at 19.2, China's actual abortion rate is likely much higher. According to China's 2010 census, there were approximately 310 million women of reproductive age in the country. An estimated 13-23 million abortions happen annually in China, resulting in an adjusted abortion rate of 41.9-74.2. The abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.
In 2014, the highest percentage of pregnancies were aborted in the District of Columbia (38%), New York (33%), and New Jersey (30%). The lowest percentage of pregnancies were aborted in Utah (5%), South Dakota (4%), and Wyoming (<2%). (AGI abortion data + CDC birth data).
In 2014, approximately 37% of all pregnancies in New York City (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion (CDC)."


So, far more lives at risk- ready to overturn Roe v. Wade?


But if your intent is to REMOVE GUNS FROM LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, a few million dead each year don't matter at all- it doesn't address what YOU want.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 12:31 PM

Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 12:40 PM

Sorry if I do not go along with your anti-gun propaganda, but as someone with a fully-operating, un-indoctrinated brain I have looked at the numbers, and see that the laws being proposed do not accomplish the intent stated by those proposing them.

I have to look at what reasons there are for disarming the legal citizens, while leaving the guns in criminal hands alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 01:05 PM

Another Darwin Award winner

Count me out of all the crocodile tears. That toddler would have grown up to be another gun-toting bigot like her mother.