CDZ Concealed Carry Ethics, Obligations and Mindset

[2aguy]

I have never met a crazier group of people than gun zealots. Wow. Hell, one of you even names yourself after a gun.

What is it about guns that you people love so much? The visceral power that you can't get from merely being a man?

And you have just shown you can't deal with the actual facts and truth we are showing you........

 

[2aguy]

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

Guns contained the shooter.....do you even think before you post....

And no one says guns are harmless....you guys say that guns create activity...that normal people will turn into murderers simply because they have a gun.....

And I have given you 40 years of actual research along with just a few stories of people using guns to stop actual mass shooters v. stories where the people did not have guns to stop mass shooters....and you can see the difference in body counts.....

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

Wrong....

part 2 of a review of gun control issues.....includes who actually commits murder...great info.....

Public Health and Gun Control --- A Review (Part II: Gun Violence and Constitutional Issues) | Hacienda Publishing


Another favorite view of the gun control, public health establishment is the myth propounded by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former head of the NCIPC of the CDC, who has written: "Most of the perpetrators of violence are not criminals by trade or profession. Indeed, in the area of domestic violence, most of the perpetrators are never accused of any crime. The victims and perpetrators are ourselves --- ordinary citizens, students, professionals, and even public health workers."(6)

That statement is contradicted by available data, government data. The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder.


(17) The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.(18)


Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed (e.g., concealed carry permit holders) law-abiding citizens.(11)

Violent crimes continue to be a problem in the inner cities with gangs involved in the drug trade. Crimes in rural areas for both blacks and whites, despite the preponderance of guns in this setting, remain low.(11,19)



Gun availability does not cause crime. Prohibitionist government policies and gun control (rather than crime control) exacerbates the problem by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property. In fact, there was a modest increase in both homicide and suicide after prohibition and passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.(20)

Sorry, but your constant vomiting of prepared propaganda on this issue is not convincing, particularly when the stats you spew are not relevant to the discussion.

Prepared propoganda? You mean research from the CDC and homicide statistics from the FBI.....as well as a comparison of actual church shootings where some churches were gun free zones and others had armed parishioners......?

 

[2aguy]

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

Guns contained the shooter.....do you even think before you post....

And no one says guns are harmless....you guys say that guns create activity...that normal people will turn into murderers simply because they have a gun.....

And I have given you 40 years of actual research along with just a few stories of people using guns to stop actual mass shooters v. stories where the people did not have guns to stop mass shooters....and you can see the difference in body counts.....

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

And this....normal people are not turned into killers because of guns...otherwise with 357,000,000 guns in private hands we would have far more murder...and the murder rate would not be going down as more people buy guns....

Public Health Pot Shots

this article goes at kellerman extensively and his crap research.....and here is some work on who actually kills people...




These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journalEducational Horizons that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available. Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence.



Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.

Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

Contrary to the impression fostered by Rosenberg and other opponents of gun ownership, the term "acquaintance homicide" does not mean killings that stem from ordinary family or neighborhood arguments. Typical acquaintance homicides include: an abusive man eventually killing a woman he has repeatedly assaulted; a drug user killing a dealer (or vice versa) in a robbery attempt; and gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals killing each other for reasons of economic rivalry or personal pique.



According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."

A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicinereported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.



-------As the English gun control analyst Colin Greenwood has noted, in any society there are always enough guns available, legally or illegally, to arm the violent. The true determinant of violence is the number of violent people, not the availability of a particular weapon. Guns contribute to murder in the trivial sense that they help violent people kill. But owning guns does not turn responsible, law-abiding people into killers. If the general availability of guns were as important a factor in violence as the CDC implies, the vast increase in firearm ownership during the past two decades should have led to a vast increase in homicide. The CDC suggested just that in a 1989 report to Congress, where it asserted that "ince the early 1970s the year-to-year fluctuations in firearm availability has [sic] paralleled the numbers of homicides."

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed. 2015 was a huge year, despite fewer people owning guns.

The 1990s....200 million guns in private hands....

2016......357,000,000 guns in private hands.....

Gun murder rate over this time......from the FBI....

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Uniform Crime Reports - 2000

gun murder rate 1997 -2000


1997..... 10,729
1998..... 9,257
1999..... 8,480
2000..... 8,493
2001..... 8,719
2002... 9,369
2003.... 9,638
2004..... 9,385
2005.... 10,158
2006.... 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

--------

You are wrong again......

 

[M14 Shooter]

Prepared propoganda? You mean research from the CDC and homicide statistics from the FBI.....as well as a comparison of actual church shootings where some churches were gun free zones and others had armed parishioners......?

Gary only continues to prove than anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[2aguy]

The NRA and gun industry funds those studies about defensive uses and has an interest in inflating the numbers.

Meanwhile, charitable non-profits that DO NOT depend on their data to affect their income report differently:

15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year

Guy......obama had his CDC study all gun research in 2013...spent 10 million dollars doing it....

bill clinton had his Department of Justice do gun self defense research in the 90s....they are not the NRA.....of those studies shown many are by anti gun researchers....

keep grasping at straws...the truth and the facts say you are wrong on everything you believe about guns....

Again, that was not a gun study. The CDC has been explicitly instructed not to TOUCH that subject:

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

Wrong again....

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've seen many people on this board that equate CCW with a gung ho wannabe cowboy just itching to slap leather and shoot a bad guy.

The truth of the matter is that CCW permit holders are less likely to get involved in avoidable altercations not more likely. Somehow that fact is another reason to criticize CCW permit holders as in the "Why didn't that CCW person stop a crime?"

I would like to reference anyone here with a stance pro or anti CCW to read any of the excellent books and articles by Massad Ayoob on the subject of concealed carry. He explores the legal, ethical and practical issues of concealed carry.

First and foremost carrying a weapon in public is a very serious responsibility and the vast majority of CCW permit holders approach it as such. It's easy to be cavalier on an anonymous message board. I'm guilty of it as many if not all of us are here. I will avoid that tendency here and I encourage anyone responding to do so as well.

I think we can all agree that it is perfectly reasonable and socially, morally, and ethically acceptable to want to protect your family from harm. Can't we?

Now with that in mind the argument of the likelihood of needing a firearm to defend yourself and/or your family is often used as an argument against even owning a firearm never mind carrying concealed.

After all how many times do people get killed by criminals in their own home? The answer to that question is the same as anywhere else. Just once.

People take precautions against things that have a low likelihood of happening all the because the result of those things happening just once is unthinkable not because it is believed the danger is actually greater than it is.

I don't want to start this thread with an overly long post so let's start here

Thank you

I think you're confusing this with our objection to open-carry zealots.

No I think you're changing your tune

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

Which statistics? That bullshit debunked Kellerman so called study?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

That is a lie.......guns are not the issue.......the actual issue in shootings in the home......prior criminal history of the occupant, drug use of the occupant, alcohol abuse of the occupant, current criminal history of the occupant....

If you are a normal person, who is law abiding....guns are not dangerous to your family. The anti gun research targeted the worst communities to do their studies....and then said that applied to normal, law abiding gun owners....

That is one of the first examples of the anti gun Bait and Switch.........

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

That argument is bunk

No one who carries a gun has any obligation to stop a crime whatsoever.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

That is a lie.......guns are not the issue.......the actual issue in shootings in the home......prior criminal history of the occupant, drug use of the occupant, alcohol abuse of the occupant, current criminal history of the occupant....

If you are a normal person, who is law abiding....guns are not dangerous to your family. The anti gun research targeted the worst communities to do their studies....and then said that applied to normal, law abiding gun owners....

That is one of the first examples of the anti gun Bait and Switch.........

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

 

[GaryDog]

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

That is a lie.......guns are not the issue.......the actual issue in shootings in the home......prior criminal history of the occupant, drug use of the occupant, alcohol abuse of the occupant, current criminal history of the occupant....

If you are a normal person, who is law abiding....guns are not dangerous to your family. The anti gun research targeted the worst communities to do their studies....and then said that applied to normal, law abiding gun owners....

That is one of the first examples of the anti gun Bait and Switch.........

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

 

[GaryDog]

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed.

You cannot prove this to be true.

Any particular reason you willfully deny facts?
America has more guns in fewer hands than ever before

 

[GaryDog]

The NRA and gun industry funds those studies about defensive uses and has an interest in inflating the numbers.

Meanwhile, charitable non-profits that DO NOT depend on their data to affect their income report differently:

15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year

Guy......obama had his CDC study all gun research in 2013...spent 10 million dollars doing it....

bill clinton had his Department of Justice do gun self defense research in the 90s....they are not the NRA.....of those studies shown many are by anti gun researchers....

keep grasping at straws...the truth and the facts say you are wrong on everything you believe about guns....

Again, that was not a gun study. The CDC has been explicitly instructed not to TOUCH that subject:

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

You have been shown study after study......the CDC can't use their research to promote gun control...which they were doing in the 1990s......refusing to look at research that showed guns were useful......

you are not paying attention....

LMAO, so they can do a study, so long as it doesn't show that gun control would be effective?

Thank you for making my point that Congress is in the can for the NRA.

 

[GaryDog]

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

Guns contained the shooter.....do you even think before you post....

And no one says guns are harmless....you guys say that guns create activity...that normal people will turn into murderers simply because they have a gun.....

And I have given you 40 years of actual research along with just a few stories of people using guns to stop actual mass shooters v. stories where the people did not have guns to stop mass shooters....and you can see the difference in body counts.....

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

And this....normal people are not turned into killers because of guns...otherwise with 357,000,000 guns in private hands we would have far more murder...and the murder rate would not be going down as more people buy guns....

Public Health Pot Shots

this article goes at kellerman extensively and his crap research.....and here is some work on who actually kills people...




These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journalEducational Horizons that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available. Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence.



Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.

Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

Contrary to the impression fostered by Rosenberg and other opponents of gun ownership, the term "acquaintance homicide" does not mean killings that stem from ordinary family or neighborhood arguments. Typical acquaintance homicides include: an abusive man eventually killing a woman he has repeatedly assaulted; a drug user killing a dealer (or vice versa) in a robbery attempt; and gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals killing each other for reasons of economic rivalry or personal pique.



According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."

A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicinereported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.



-------As the English gun control analyst Colin Greenwood has noted, in any society there are always enough guns available, legally or illegally, to arm the violent. The true determinant of violence is the number of violent people, not the availability of a particular weapon. Guns contribute to murder in the trivial sense that they help violent people kill. But owning guns does not turn responsible, law-abiding people into killers. If the general availability of guns were as important a factor in violence as the CDC implies, the vast increase in firearm ownership during the past two decades should have led to a vast increase in homicide. The CDC suggested just that in a 1989 report to Congress, where it asserted that "ince the early 1970s the year-to-year fluctuations in firearm availability has [sic] paralleled the numbers of homicides."

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed. 2015 was a huge year, despite fewer people owning guns.

No....2015 is going to be a big year because cops are not being active against criminals because of the Ferguson effect, and obama has cut federal gun prosecutions by 30% and he is releasing convicted felons....that is why 2015 will be a higher gun murder year........since every year up to 2015 has shown a decrease in gun murder.....

And since we know he used Fast and Furious to try to restart gun control...we know he is using black lies murder and a reduction in gun crime prosecutions to increase the gun murder rate in major cities....so they can kick off a new wave of gun control.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

First off, the "Ferguson effect" is a total myth, propagated by republicans to try and suppress speech and dissent from those against police abuses.

There Is No Ferguson Effect—but That Doesn’t Mean We Can Ignore Urban Murder Spikes

Second, Obama released non-violent drug offenders.

Third, Fast and Furious had nothing to do with gun control. Is your tinfoil hat a little snug?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

Says the anti-gun loon, able to only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

You still have not answered my question.
Is this because you cannot, or you know that to do so ruins your position?
How many more guns were there in the US in 2014 than in 1997?

 

[Skull Pilot]

That is a lie.......guns are not the issue.......the actual issue in shootings in the home......prior criminal history of the occupant, drug use of the occupant, alcohol abuse of the occupant, current criminal history of the occupant....

If you are a normal person, who is law abiding....guns are not dangerous to your family. The anti gun research targeted the worst communities to do their studies....and then said that applied to normal, law abiding gun owners....

That is one of the first examples of the anti gun Bait and Switch.........

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

A gun for self defense is not supposed to make "us" safer.

A self defense weapon is a last resort tool.

Anyone who carries and I'll stick to CCW not open carry as CCW is the topic of the thread has no obligation legally morally or otherwise to defend the public from a criminal.

If I was in a mall with my wife and carrying and there was an active shooter situation I would do one of 2 things. Leave with my wife or shelter somewhere out of the way with my wife behind me and I would give her my holdout gun I keep for her as she is not licensed to carry and we would wait.

My first obligation is to my wife, my family not you, not your kids, not anyone else. I am not a cop I do not want to be a cop so I will not act like a cop.

So my question to you is what would you do in the same situation?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed.

You cannot prove this to be true.

Any particular reason you willfully deny facts?
America has more guns in fewer hands than ever before

You have to also prove that more people are killed. That, you cannot do.
Nor can you show causation.

You still have not answered my question.
Is this because you cannot, or you know that to do so ruins your position?
How many more guns were there in the US in 2014 than in 1997?

 

[GaryDog]

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed.

You cannot prove this to be true.

Any particular reason you willfully deny facts?
America has more guns in fewer hands than ever before

You have to also prove that more people are killed. That, you cannot do.
Nor can you show causation.

You still have not answered my question.
Is this because you cannot, or you know that to do so ruins your position?
How many more guns were there in the US in 2014 than in 1997?

Yes, it's helped that the CDC has been prevented from even INVESTIGATING causation. The NRA made sure of that. Why do you think they did that?

 

[GaryDog]

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

A gun for self defense is not supposed to make "us" safer.

A self defense weapon is a last resort tool.

Anyone who carries and I'll stick to CCW not open carry as CCW is the topic of the thread has no obligation legally morally or otherwise to defend the public from a criminal.

If I was in a mall with my wife and carrying and there was an active shooter situation I would do one of 2 things. Leave with my wife or shelter somewhere out of the way with my wife behind me and I would give her my holdout gun I keep for her as she is not licensed to carry and we would wait.

My first obligation is to my wife, my family not you, not your kids, not anyone else. I am not a cop I do not want to be a cop so I will not act like a cop.

So my question to you is what would you do in the same situation?

That post is entirely irrelevant /\/\/\

This is a discussion of guns in a societal context, not anecdotes about your own heroism vis a vis your family. And like I said, you've proven that an excessive amount of guns in society does not do society as a whole any favors. Hence, controlling the proliferation of guns in society is a compelling state interest.

 

[westwall]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

Those statistics are not supported by facts. In other words they are made up to advance a political agenda.

Another example of debate in a "post-factual democracy" /\/\/\

There is no political agenda associated with the statistics. They are facts. You're less likely to die from gunfire if you DON'T own a gun. Period.

Wrong. There most certainly IS a political agenda when the group putting out those "statisitics" lies about them, and the only reason to lie about them is because of the agenda. The groups pushing those "stats" are overwhelmingly anti gun groups. Why do you resort to lies if your arguments is so strong?

LMAO, I provide you with a fact-base study that has verified its methodology, and you respond with a crybaby rant with zero substance.

At the same time, you ping my messages for lacking substance. You're a substantial piece of shit.

No, you didn't. That study has been shown to be incredibly poorly done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed.

You cannot prove this to be true.

Any particular reason you willfully deny facts?
America has more guns in fewer hands than ever before

You have to also prove that more people are killed. That, you cannot do.
Nor can you show causation.

You still have not answered my question.
Is this because you cannot, or you know that to do so ruins your position?
How many more guns were there in the US in 2014 than in 1997?

Yes, it's helped that the CDC has been prevented from even INVESTIGATING causation. The NRA made sure of that. Why do you think they did that?

You failed completely to address my post.
Lets try again:

You have to also prove that more people are killed. That, you cannot do.
Nor can you show causation.

You still have not answered my question.
Is this because you cannot, or you know that to do so ruins your position?
How many more guns were there in the US in 2014 than in 1997?