The Great 2nd Ammendment Debate

[otoc]

What information in that post is misleading or false? Are there not about 100 abortions for every death from a bullet in the USA? Is it not true that there were only two public mass shootings in the last few decades that were not in a gun free zone while the rest were?

Perhaps you are having trouble reading today. I wrote both misleading and false, mimicking the original post. To compare abortions to murders is misleading for the point I tried to make. I'm sure the numbers are probably not false, even though they seem to come off the top of both minds from you and tucker.

As to "few decades"? Ah you refer to Lott's "studies"? Where he includes crime numbers but excludes that count as a gun free zone because a crime is involved? OK.
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/gun-...-theyre-wrong/

John R. Lott is, by a significant margin, the most prolific and outspoken researcher on gun-free zones in the United States. He is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and a vociferous opponent of gun laws, having frequently testified before Congress in favor of expanding Right to Carry (RTC) policy. Lott abhors the idea of gun-free zones, and has made the ambitious claim, on numerous occasions, that “with just two exceptions, every public mass shooting in the United States since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens were banned from carrying guns.”

Central to Lott’s argument against gun-free zones is a 2000 study in which he claimed to find that the expansion of RTC laws reduces the number of people in those states killed or injured in multiple-victim shootings by a staggering 78 percent. Lott’s study, however, suffers from enormous flaws, including incorrect statistical modeling and dubious data-selection methodology.

In one example of statistical malpractice, Lott excludes many mass-shooting incidents in which the shooter was committing an additional felony (such as armed robbery) during the crime, despite the fact that felony-related mass murders account for 36 percent of the data set on which he bases the study. Lott’s explanation for doing so was an unjustified presumption that bystanders in crimes like robberies or drug deals will already “be engaged in unlawful activities that often require them to carry guns.” However, analysis of this claim reveals that 69 percent of the mass shootings excluded by Lott involved robberies committed in public locations (like convenience stores and fast-food restaurants) where the bystanders were innocent civilians. If RTC laws are to have any effect at all, then surely they would apply to such situations, making it unclear how Lott could choose to ignore them.

When Lott’s research is compared to a more recent study using more appropriate statistical models and a wider range of available data, the beneficial effect of Right to Carry policy vanishes. The authors of a 2002 study, a trio with combined criminology and economics expertise, evaluated RTC laws in 25 states from 1977 to 1999, an expanded version of Lott’s analysis (which covered 23 states in that same time period). They concluded that “RTC laws have no effect on mass public shootings at all.”

What I find amazing is Lott's concept that if the majority of mass shootings (let's not just focus on the dead here) are performed by those with mental issues, that they somehow have the ability to reason in such a way to focus only on gun free zones? Now if that isn't a misleading conclusion then what is?

Now, I prefer to focus on the fact that deluded individuals are committing mass injury with guns. Time to do something about it. Even the GOP says so. What's your point here, that the GOP is also wrong?

[otoc]

If you read my post you would have understood that Obama would have nothing to unconstitutionally legislate, fund, and execute by executive order and the federal GOP would not have anything to deal with.



This is a problem that needs to be dealt with by the states, local authorities and the people. If Obama wants to stop anybody from shooting each other, then he wouldn't be still fukking with issues in Syria and bombing hospitals in Afghanistan.

I'll refrain from joining you in Syria and point out I read and responded to your point of showcasing breitbart's typically inflaming post that once again didn't match their original source.

[Dutchcedar]

Perhaps you are having trouble reading today. I wrote both misleading and false, mimicking the original post. To compare abortions to murders is misleading for the point I tried to make. I'm sure the numbers are probably not false, even though they seem to come off the top of both minds from you and tucker.

OK, got it. You didn't mean what you said when you said my post was misleading or false, just mimicking another post today. But now you say it wasn't false, but misleading. Follow the bouncing ball.

As to "few decades"? Ah you refer to Lott's "studies"? Where he includes crime numbers but excludes that count as a gun free zone because a crime is involved? OK.?

I don't know about this Lott fellow. Never heard of him. I see you're going all Alinsky on his arse, so he must have merit. But its extremely misleading to get all verklempt over these mass school shootings with calls for gun control and then justify it by including criminal activity and gang shootings in the statistics to bolster a point. But, of course, you're blind to that slight of hand. See college rape statistics for more liberal "create a tragedy" mojo.

Now, I prefer to focus on the fact that deluded individuals are committing mass injury with guns. Time to do something about it. Even the GOP says so. What's your point here, that the GOP is also wrong.

Then you keep focusing on what you prefer, otoc... when you and the GOP figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of deluded individuals, y'all get back to me. I dunno how that will help the criminal activity you're so concerned with though... getting weapons legitimately doesn't strike folks as a barrier to gang shootings and criminals.

[Skennar]

I'll refrain from joining you in Syria and point out I read and responded to your point of showcasing breitbart's typically inflaming post that once again didn't match their original source.

Okay.

This is just FYI then. I've had people argue with me that federal gun control would make their criminal database and authority available. My argument is that it's pointless as states already have access to federal records via FBI and HLS. If they don't then that is an issue with the feds that the president could intervene with without EO or legislative interference. Many states vet with these records (and theirs) at gun purchase time (handgun only in many cases). Then some, by law, don't register the weapon. The Feds also already have agreements in place as to when they should get involved or not. Abuse here is likely, but there are times they need to defer.

What could be done is classes could be provided with training and legal review. CCWs are more rigorous where I am and they cover things like laws in other states (something that is a bit ridiculous) but is being dealt with, and more time at the range-

http://thehill.com/regulation/legisl...un-rights-bill

I carry interstate and with my check-in as necessary. There are some things that make sense. It's dealing with those things that don't and are politically driven.

Most cops and their procedures have more common sense than people realize.

[otoc]

OK, got it. You didn't mean what you said when you said my post was misleading or false, just mimicking another post today. But now you say it wasn't false, but misleading. Follow the bouncing ball.



I don't know about this Lott fellow. Never heard of him. I see you're going all Alinsky on his arse, so he must have merit. But its extremely misleading to get all verklempt over these mass school shootings with calls for gun control and then justify it by including criminal activity and gang shootings in the statistics to bolster a point. But, of course, you're blind to that slight of hand. See college rape statistics for more liberal "create a tragedy" mojo.



Then you keep focusing on what you prefer, otoc... when you and the GOP figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of deluded individuals, y'all get back to me. I dunno how that will help the criminal activity you're so concerned with though... getting weapons legitimately doesn't strike folks as a barrier to gang shootings and criminals.

Oh God, the bouncing ball projection. Fine dutch.

[otoc]

Okay.

This is just FYI then. I've had people argue with me that federal gun control would make their criminal database and authority available. My argument is that it's pointless as states already have access to federal records via FBI and HLS. If they don't then that is an issue with the feds that the president could intervene with without EO or legislative interference. Many states vet with these records (and theirs) at gun purchase time (handgun only in many cases). Then some, by law, don't register the weapon. The Feds also already have agreements in place as to when they should get involved or not. Abuse here is likely, but there are times they need to defer.

What could be done is classes could be provided with training and legal review. CCWs are more rigorous where I am and they cover things like laws in other states (something that is a bit ridiculous) but is being dealt with, and more time at the range-

http://thehill.com/regulation/legisl...un-rights-bill

I carry interstate and with my check-in as necessary. There are some things that make sense. It's dealing with those things that don't and are politically driven.

Most cops and their procedures have more common sense than people realize.

It seems this sick kid was well trained, now 3 mass shootings in educational institutions back...
Oregon Killer’s Mother Wrote of Troubled Son and Gun Rights

Ms. Harper, who divorced her husband a decade ago, appears to have been by far the most significant figure in her son’s troubled life; neighbors say he rarely left their apartment. Unlike his father, who said on television that he had no idea Mr. Harper-Mercer cared so deeply about guns, his mother was well aware of his fascination. In fact, she shared it: In a series of online postings over a decade, Ms. Harper, a nurse, said she kept numerous firearms in her home and expressed pride in her knowledge about them, as well as in her son’s expertise on the subject.

In an online forum, answering a question about state gun laws several years ago, Ms. Harper took a jab at “lame states” that impose limits on keeping loaded firearms in the home, and noted that she had AR-15 and AK-47 semiautomatic rifles, along with a Glock handgun. She also indicated that her son, who lived with her, was well versed in guns, citing him as her source of information on gun laws, saying he “has much knowledge in this field.”

“I keep two full mags in my Glock case. And the ARs & AKs all have loaded mags,” Ms. Harper wrote. “No one will be ‘dropping’ by my house uninvited without acknowledgement.”

Neighbors in Southern California have said that Ms. Harper and her son would go to shooting ranges together, something Ms. Harper seemed to confirm in one of her online posts. She talked about the importance of firearms safety and said she learned a lot through target shooting, expressing little patience with unprepared gun owners: “When I’m at the range, I cringe every time the ‘wannabes’ show up.”

My opinion is we need to restrict gun ownership in households where reality is dysfunctional. The above example, where training was carried out by what I assume to be a caring and law abiding gun owner, really did nothing other than train a mass shooter. I also believe this needs to be handled very carefully in order to protect what we've accomplished with HIPPA laws. Frankly, I don't have the answer for that last part.

[Skennar]

It seems this sick kid was well trained, now 3 mass shootings in educational institutions back...
Oregon Killer’s Mother Wrote of Troubled Son and Gun Rights


My opinion is we need to restrict gun ownership in households where reality is dysfunctional. The above example, where training was carried out by what I assume to be a caring and law abiding gun owner, really did nothing other than train a mass shooter. I also believe this needs to be handled very carefully in order to protect what we've accomplished with HIPPA laws. Frankly, I don't have the answer for that last part.

It's going to happen. Sociopaths happen more often in politics too,to be able to trust them with this. Especially in federal government. Ted Bundy would have got past all the test we have today. We simply can't get rid of it all and punishing everyone else is not the solution.

[otoc]

It's going to happen. Sociopaths happen more often in politics too,to be able to trust them with this. Especially in federal government. Ted Bundy would have got past all the test we have today too. We simply can't get rid of it all and punishing everyone else is not the solution.

Well then, you have it figured out. Shootings will continue at this accelerated point I guess. But tell me, how would my suggestion punish "everyone else"? Is everyone a product of the mental health system like this kid was? Sorry, I don't agree that "everyone" would be touched by such a change. I do agree that it won't stop all mass shootings. Rage shootings, for example, where the offended party in a relationship goes after the spouse and their lover.

You know, this is where you lose me. To offer a change to make a difference does not mean a utopian fix for everything. All you offer are unreasonable leaps that are the reason why we've done nothing as a nation to stem this tragedy while making legal gun ownership the anti-up in this equation. I see differences between those whom own and act with responsibility and those from whom I fear for my life when I see them waving a gun.

[Skennar]

You know, this is where you lose me. To offer a change to make a difference does not mean a utopian fix for everything. All you offer are unreasonable leaps that are the reason why we've done nothing as a nation to stem this tragedy while making legal gun ownership the anti-up in this equation. I see differences between those whom own and act with responsibility and those from whom I fear for my life when I see them waving a gun.

?? Where precisely have I lost you. There are sociopaths that get by the political, Federal and American electorate systems all the time. A psycho sociopath is going to get by anything you wish to set up. You won't have evidence until after the bodies are tied to them. Anything you want that might be rigorous enough to possibly find them is going to invade any and everyone's privacy and rights.

To say we're doing nothing- which is a lie- is precisely how government justifies doing as much as they want.

I buy guns and I can tell you that they are NOT doing nothing. They did a background check on my purchases. My STATE does that already. I can tell you that if they wanted to know I bought ammunition, they only need to look at my cc charges. They could tell you what caliber and where right away. If one of my newer guns is used, they could also match the ballistics with the manufacturer. A professional can get around all this and you can't put enough controls in place without having someone watching everyone's ass all the time.

What happens is everything becomes about political correctness. If someone makes a joke or says something someone else doesn't like, they can report it to the local gestapo office and a law abiding person can be disarmed without a warrant. That is what we're trying to stay away from and why we don't want the feds to have their nose under the tent with this. Their obligation is to enforce the 2nd Amendment, not figure out ways to get around it.

[otoc]

?? Where precisely have I lost you. There are sociopaths that get by the political, Federal and American electorate systems all the time. A psycho sociopath is going to get by anything you wish to set up. You won't have evidence until after the bodies are tied to them. Anything you want that might be rigorous enough to possibly find them is going to invade any and everyone's privacy and rights.

To say we're doing nothing- which is a lie- is precisely how government justifies doing as much as they want.

I buy guns and I can tell you that they are NOT doing nothing. They did a background check on my purchases. My STATE does that already. I can tell you that if they wanted to know I bought ammunition, they only need to look at my cc charges. They could tell you what caliber and where right away. If one of my newer guns is used, they could also match the ballistics with the manufacturer. A professional can get around all this and you can't put enough controls in place without having someone watching everyone's ass all the time.

What happens is everything becomes about political correctness. If someone makes a joke or says something someone else doesn't like, they can report it to the local gestapo office and a law abiding person can be disarmed without a warrant. That is what we're trying to stay away from and why we don't want the feds to have their nose under the tent with this. Their obligation is to enforce the 2nd Amendment, not figure out ways to get around it.

Where you lose me is the combination of the slippery slope and addition of sociopaths, jumping off into your opinion of politicians, Syria, Afghanistan, and now political correctness. What I thought we were discussing was mass shootings.

Database ballistics is an after-the-fact crime tool, not a preventative. Federal background checks are a prevention, while gun shows are a loophole. Mental health reporting needs a comprehensive mental health policy besides Greyhound treatment and insurance companies having the ability to deem whether or not its covered. Since states dictate how someone might carry, and states differ, the fear that the thought police might come is pretty remote considering the courts have ruled several times on the individual's right to bear arms. There's no debate on that one, and while inaction will cause yet another court ruling to come our way, the courts won't rule against the individual due to precedence. My opinion.

Sorry, and with respect towards your opinions, we are jumping around too much on a very complicated topic for me to focus on discussing targeted solutions. Nothing will stop all shootings: mass, passion, or crime related. But where there is agreement in a world of polarized political views, I find it sad that the human cost-those killed and injured-isn't one that is discussed as a reason to find a solution that makes some difference. Sick people commit mass murders. Not guns, not politicians, and certainly not a fear of political correctness or awareness that a zone may or may not be gun free.

[Skennar]

Sorry, and with respect towards your opinions, we are jumping around too much on a very complicated topic for me to focus on discussing targeted solutions. Nothing will stop all shootings: mass, passion, or crime related. But where there is agreement in a world of polarized political views, I find it sad that the human cost-those killed and injured-isn't one that is discussed as a reason to find a solution that makes some difference. Sick people commit mass murders. Not guns, not politicians, and certainly not a fear of political correctness or awareness that a zone may or may not be gun free.

I will try to simplify it for you. Let me start with the reason this is going on.

Obama is NOT acting on this because he gives a dam about our constitution or our people. He is doing this for the same reason he is pimping these trade agreements, etc. It's about global governance and the implementation of agenda 21. The rest of the world thinks our nationalism, constitution and bill of rights are a thing of the past and are to be superceded by an international corporate board. This is happening right under your nose and no one gets it ... because we're not allowed to see it. And it could start to pass the legislature before the end of the year.

What people DON'T understand is that this is not about rights and responsibility but CONTROL. Guns to this outfit is not about rights but "Guns being in the hands of those who are responsible and the regulation of small arms trade". There's a lot you can pretend here, but the truth is what's important.

Of course we are not given a definition of who the "responsible or sane parties" are- that's determined by an elite clic at the top of the world pyramid- and NO ONE understands what "the regulation of of small arms trade" means. So I'll tell you.

It's about the CONTROL of trade and who profits from it. PERIOD.

They don't give a shit about children slaughtered in gun-free schools or the children who are murdered because they are in the way of a Saudi pipeline. They just need to dramatize even CAUSE it enough to control trade and not give a shit about the who or the reasons people were murdered along the way.

The sickness of our government is proven by our IRS. Having an organization that monitors taxation is one thing. Having a organization that pisses on your bill of rights and can say you're guilty until proven innocent and vanish and clear records and hard drives is another. You can use it to tax. You can use it against crime. But it was never supposed to be a political strong-arm with the power to cover up it's own crimes. And so shall it be with your new global masters. Only it will be worse and more impossible to change.

And you want to trust them with gun control?

[Skennar]

Well then, you have it figured out. Shootings will continue at this accelerated point I guess. But tell me, how would my suggestion punish "everyone else"? Is everyone a product of the mental health system like this kid was? Sorry, I don't agree that "everyone" would be touched by such a change. I do agree that it won't stop all mass shootings. Rage shootings, for example, where the offended party in a relationship goes after the spouse and their lover.

You know, this is where you lose me. To offer a change to make a difference does not mean a utopian fix for everything. All you offer are unreasonable leaps that are the reason why we've done nothing as a nation to stem this tragedy while making legal gun ownership the anti-up in this equation. I see differences between those whom own and act with responsibility and those from whom I fear for my life when I see them waving a gun.

This really is "oxymoronic". We can't do anything about it, but we should control it. You are not alone in not knowing what to do and presume that someone else does and should be in CONTROL of that. You tell me that you don't see sociopaths in politics as having any relation to those in gun shootings, yet it is those who are in politics that get us into wars, assassinations or whatever requires a gun for them to implement policies you LET (notice I didn't say trust) them. You only LET them be the bright bulb in the room- not you.

YOU are in charge of YOUR weapon. YOU are the one who should know how to use it, when to use it and WHY you use it. YOU are the one who should be the trustworthy party and YOU are the one who should be taught that. And ultimately, YOU are the one who should be accountable for its use. The US government is NOT going to do it for you. If they are not helping with you being responsible for anything,then you shouldn't have anything and you WON'T have anything.

You have a constitutional right to bear arms and IT IS NOT TO BE INFRINGED. The government is supposed to regulate the militia- not the weapons.

So by using the same logic as you confused yourself with- wouldn't it make much more sense to help THE PEOPLE teach responsibility than to pretend the government is the only responsible party on the planet?.

[tucker]

I find the number of black on black killings in Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles and virtually every major city appalling. There's very little said about that by either party. Even more tragic is Obama's failure to do anything about it. He's more interested in pursuing blue on black killings. You know why it's more politically advantagious to do that. He is a master of divide and create hatred.

[SteveW]

...."Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.

The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.".......

This outta fix everything - such a "High Risk" demographic for firearms related crime....

[otoc]

This outta fix everything - such a "High Risk" demographic for firearms related crime....

Nothing fixes everything. Why do you even argue a point from that direction? Seems like a losing position especially if you're projecting that delusion in my direction.