Note to Gun-Control Liberals: You Can’t Handle the Truth

[M14 Shooter]

Where is the gun advocates solution?

Aggressive enforcement of existing laws.

78 people die due to guns a day and there is no background checks.

This is, of course, a lie.

When I said no background check. I meant that the background checks aren't universal. Sorry missed a word there on that one.

Universal background checks are unenforceable and therefore useless.

You have a gun, therefore you had to pass a background check... Simple.

That's not at all necessarily.true, as I may have bought the gun before the background check law was enacted.
How do you prove I did not?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where is the gun advocates solution?

Aggressive enforcement of existing laws.

78 people die due to guns a day and there is no background checks.

This is, of course, a lie.

When I said no background check. I meant that the background checks aren't universal. Sorry missed a word there on that one.

Universal background checks are unenforceable and therefore useless.

I am more mandatory insurance anyway... Have a gun, insure it...

Unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of a right.

 

[CowboyTed]

Where is the gun advocates solution?

Aggressive enforcement of existing laws.

78 people die due to guns a day and there is no background checks.

This is, of course, a lie.

When I said no background check. I meant that the background checks aren't universal. Sorry missed a word there on that one.

Universal background checks are unenforceable and therefore useless.

I am more mandatory insurance anyway... Have a gun, insure it...

Unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of a right.

You have a constitutional right to a gun but the government doesn't actually buy you one. So having insurance is just the cost of owning a gun.
No insurance, just hand you gun at your local police station. It will encourage safe practices from gun owners thus save lives through market pratices.

Why should non gun owners subsidize the lifestyle and choices of gun owners?
Why are you supporting freeloaders against the tax payers...

 

[BluesLegend]

Question: If you are a lying lowlife scumbag liberal how do you destroy the 2nd amendment?

Answer: Death by a thousand cuts approach. Just keep passing more gun control laws that make it more difficult, more expensive, and legally risky to own or use a gun until people just give up their 2nd amendment rights.

Fortunately this will blow up in the fools face like always.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Aggressive enforcement of existing laws.
This is, of course, a lie.

When I said no background check. I meant that the background checks aren't universal. Sorry missed a word there on that one.

Universal background checks are unenforceable and therefore useless.

I am more mandatory insurance anyway... Have a gun, insure it...

Unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of a right.

You have a constitutional right to a gun but the government doesn't actually buy you one. So having insurance is just the cost of owning a gun.

In placing a requirement for insurance, the state creates an unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right

 

[CowboyTed]

When I said no background check. I meant that the background checks aren't universal. Sorry missed a word there on that one.

Universal background checks are unenforceable and therefore useless.

I am more mandatory insurance anyway... Have a gun, insure it...

Unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of a right.

You have a constitutional right to a gun but the government doesn't actually buy you one. So having insurance is just the cost of owning a gun.

In placing a requirement for insurance, the state creates an unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right

Did you miss the $229bn a year subsidizing freeloaders who won't pay for there mistakes...

Do you think it right people can engage in an activity which can injure others and have no means to pay compensation...

That is freeloading.. At least a guy without a job could be trying to get a job and need welfare to live...

You are supporting robbing the taxpayer to give to leeches who have no insurance but still want to engage in risky activities...

Again $229bn dollars, that's over 4 times what's given in foreign aid... Do you want a list of what this would pay for...

Why are you supporting leeching of the government and increasing taxes or Debt?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Universal background checks are unenforceable and therefore useless.

I am more mandatory insurance anyway... Have a gun, insure it...

Unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of a right.

You have a constitutional right to a gun but the government doesn't actually buy you one. So having insurance is just the cost of owning a gun.

In placing a requirement for insurance, the state creates an unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right

Did you miss the $229bn a year subsidizing freeloaders who won't pay for there mistakes...

Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.
Then explain how your unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right does not infringe upon said right..

 

[CowboyTed]

I am more mandatory insurance anyway... Have a gun, insure it...

Unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of a right.

You have a constitutional right to a gun but the government doesn't actually buy you one. So having insurance is just the cost of owning a gun.

In placing a requirement for insurance, the state creates an unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right

Did you miss the $229bn a year subsidizing freeloaders who won't pay for there mistakes...

Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.
Then explain how your unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right does not infringe upon said right..

What is your objection... If legal gun owners cause no damage why do you object to them paying for their own choices.

If person is in an uninsured car and causes an accident, it is not a reason for everyone not to get insurance. Prosecute the guy for no insurance.

I am just asking gun owners to have personal responsibility and pay there way. If a gun is stolen the owner is liable until the gun is recovered unless they have the gun in a secure place and then until they report it stolen.

Personal Responsibility... This insurance would be simply bought on line after simple questionnaire...

It would also allow the government to get out of major background checks... Have insurance then get gun...

"If we must allow guns, we should at least guarantee compensation to people harmed by guns, after all, we are all swimming in that pool of potential shooting victims. I know money can never make up for the damage a gun can do, but compensation is not an insignificant matter. Consider someone who is paralyzed, or left brain-damaged, or permanently disabled by a gun. That victim would be assured of having things like ramps, and nurses aids, and whatever other therapies he required, guaranteed for his lifetime. Currently, unless the locality has a “Victim Fund,” a shooting victim receives only the benefits his own medical insurance or Medicaid provides, and medical insurance does not include things like home modifications for a wheelchair, or hand controls for cars. The insurance companies wanting to participate in this new, no doubt lucrative market, could also be required to create a fund to take care of victims injured by illegal, uninsured guns, making sure anyone hurt by a gun has a recourse to whatever services they require."


Simply put carry concealed weapon just pay if the gun shoots someone it shouldn't... Don't expect the Taxpayer to pay...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of a right.

You have a constitutional right to a gun but the government doesn't actually buy you one. So having insurance is just the cost of owning a gun.

In placing a requirement for insurance, the state creates an unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right

Did you miss the $229bn a year subsidizing freeloaders who won't pay for there mistakes...

Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.
Then explain how your unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right does not infringe upon said right..

What is your objection... If legal gun owners cause no damage why do you object to them paying for their own choices.

Again:
Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.

 

[CowboyTed]

You have a constitutional right to a gun but the government doesn't actually buy you one. So having insurance is just the cost of owning a gun.

In placing a requirement for insurance, the state creates an unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right

Did you miss the $229bn a year subsidizing freeloaders who won't pay for there mistakes...

Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.
Then explain how your unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right does not infringe upon said right..

What is your objection... If legal gun owners cause no damage why do you object to them paying for their own choices.

Again:
Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.

Accidents...

Do car owners go out to intentionally kill or hurt people (some do and that is criminal) but there is a large part that it is just an accident.

There is also what happens if the gun owner had a few drinks or on prescription medicine and shoots someone due to bad judgement.

This is protect the gun owner who after he loses his home and everything, the victim is still left out of pocket.

This is as much about injury as about death...

Why are you protecting freeloaders over tax payers... Do you want smaller government?

 

[2aguy]

Aggressive enforcement of existing laws.
This is, of course, a lie.

When I said no background check. I meant that the background checks aren't universal. Sorry missed a word there on that one.

Universal background checks are unenforceable and therefore useless.

I am more mandatory insurance anyway... Have a gun, insure it...

Unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of a right.

You have a constitutional right to a gun but the government doesn't actually buy you one. So having insurance is just the cost of owning a gun.
No insurance, just hand you gun at your local police station. It will encourage safe practices from gun owners thus save lives through market pratices.

Why should non gun owners subsidize the lifestyle and choices of gun owners?
Why are you supporting freeloaders against the tax payers...

They don't subsidize anything……and we will send you a check for keeping you safe……you guys won't even protect yourselves…but expect everyone else to do it for you….

 

[2aguy]

In placing a requirement for insurance, the state creates an unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right

Did you miss the $229bn a year subsidizing freeloaders who won't pay for there mistakes...

Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.
Then explain how your unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right does not infringe upon said right..

What is your objection... If legal gun owners cause no damage why do you object to them paying for their own choices.

Again:
Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.

Accidents...

Do car owners go out to intentionally kill or hurt people (some do and that is criminal) but there is a large part that it is just an accident.

There is also what happens if the gun owner had a few drinks or on prescription medicine and shoots someone due to bad judgement.

This is protect the gun owner who after he loses his home and everything, the victim is still left out of pocket.

This is as much about injury as about death...

Why are you protecting freeloaders over tax payers... Do you want smaller government?

All of those are already handled by civil and criminal law.

Accidental gun deaths in 2013……. 505

gun murder 2014….. 8,124

Crimes stopped by normal gun owners with guns each year…… 1.5 million

Your welcome…now where is our check?

 

[CowboyTed]

When I said no background check. I meant that the background checks aren't universal. Sorry missed a word there on that one.

Universal background checks are unenforceable and therefore useless.

I am more mandatory insurance anyway... Have a gun, insure it...

Unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of a right.

You have a constitutional right to a gun but the government doesn't actually buy you one. So having insurance is just the cost of owning a gun.
No insurance, just hand you gun at your local police station. It will encourage safe practices from gun owners thus save lives through market pratices.

Why should non gun owners subsidize the lifestyle and choices of gun owners?
Why are you supporting freeloaders against the tax payers...

They don't subsidize anything……and we will send you a check for keeping you safe……you guys won't even protect yourselves…but expect everyone else to do it for you….

I am just saying it has been well proven that a gun in your house does not actually make you safer.

So if you want a gun pay for it including the insurance to keep it.

 

[2aguy]

Universal background checks are unenforceable and therefore useless.

I am more mandatory insurance anyway... Have a gun, insure it...

Unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of a right.

You have a constitutional right to a gun but the government doesn't actually buy you one. So having insurance is just the cost of owning a gun.
No insurance, just hand you gun at your local police station. It will encourage safe practices from gun owners thus save lives through market pratices.

Why should non gun owners subsidize the lifestyle and choices of gun owners?
Why are you supporting freeloaders against the tax payers...

They don't subsidize anything……and we will send you a check for keeping you safe……you guys won't even protect yourselves…but expect everyone else to do it for you….

I am just saying it has been well proven that a gun in your house does not actually make you safer.

So if you want a gun pay for it including the insurance to keep it.

That is not true. The study that gun grabbers site was show to be wrong…in fact, if you want to make a home safer…keep the gun, get rid of alcohol, drugs, and members of the family with histories of anti social behavior and criminal records…..

A gun in the home of a normal family is safer than their car. A gun in the home of a family afflicted with alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness, anti social behavior and past criminal activity…..more or less democrat homes….then you can talk about a gun being dangerous.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In placing a requirement for insurance, the state creates an unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right

Did you miss the $229bn a year subsidizing freeloaders who won't pay for there mistakes...

Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.
Then explain how your unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right does not infringe upon said right..

What is your objection... If legal gun owners cause no damage why do you object to them paying for their own choices.

Again:
Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.

Accidents...

Accidents?
How does the number of gun-related accidents justify the requirements fr all gun owners to purchase insurance?
How many gun owners are there?
how many people are accidentally shot by them?
How many of these victims are not covered by insurance?

 

[CowboyTed]

Did you miss the $229bn a year subsidizing freeloaders who won't pay for there mistakes...

Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.
Then explain how your unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right does not infringe upon said right..

What is your objection... If legal gun owners cause no damage why do you object to them paying for their own choices.

Again:
Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.

Accidents...

Do car owners go out to intentionally kill or hurt people (some do and that is criminal) but there is a large part that it is just an accident.

There is also what happens if the gun owner had a few drinks or on prescription medicine and shoots someone due to bad judgement.

This is protect the gun owner who after he loses his home and everything, the victim is still left out of pocket.

This is as much about injury as about death...

Why are you protecting freeloaders over tax payers... Do you want smaller government?

All of those are already handled by civil and criminal law.

Accidental gun deaths in 2013……. 505

gun murder 2014….. 8,124

Crimes stopped by normal gun owners with guns each year…… 1.5 million

Your welcome…now where is our check?

Well on accidents that should be good for keep the cost of insurance down.

You haven't counted gun injuries and the costs of not keeping the gun secure and stuff like that...

But it is nice to see you breaking down the cost and seeing that if you are responsible the price of insurance should be very reasonable...

 

[2aguy]

Universal background checks are unenforceable and therefore useless.

I am more mandatory insurance anyway... Have a gun, insure it...

Unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of a right.

You have a constitutional right to a gun but the government doesn't actually buy you one. So having insurance is just the cost of owning a gun.
No insurance, just hand you gun at your local police station. It will encourage safe practices from gun owners thus save lives through market pratices.

Why should non gun owners subsidize the lifestyle and choices of gun owners?
Why are you supporting freeloaders against the tax payers...

They don't subsidize anything……and we will send you a check for keeping you safe……you guys won't even protect yourselves…but expect everyone else to do it for you….

I am just saying it has been well proven that a gun in your house does not actually make you safer.

So if you want a gun pay for it including the insurance to keep it.

This article looks at kellerman…the gun control researcher who is most often cited for guns and homes…..and how his research is crap….

Public Health Pot Shots

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.

 

[2aguy]

Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.
Then explain how your unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right does not infringe upon said right..

What is your objection... If legal gun owners cause no damage why do you object to them paying for their own choices.

Again:
Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.

Accidents...

Do car owners go out to intentionally kill or hurt people (some do and that is criminal) but there is a large part that it is just an accident.

There is also what happens if the gun owner had a few drinks or on prescription medicine and shoots someone due to bad judgement.

This is protect the gun owner who after he loses his home and everything, the victim is still left out of pocket.

This is as much about injury as about death...

Why are you protecting freeloaders over tax payers... Do you want smaller government?

All of those are already handled by civil and criminal law.

Accidental gun deaths in 2013……. 505

gun murder 2014….. 8,124

Crimes stopped by normal gun owners with guns each year…… 1.5 million

Your welcome…now where is our check?

Well on accidents that should be good for keep the cost of insurance down.

You haven't counted gun injuries and the costs of not keeping the gun secure and stuff like that...

But it is nice to see you breaking down the cost and seeing that if you are responsible the price of insurance should be very reasonable...

Sorry….mandating insurance for the exercise of a civil Right is unconstitutional…….the democrats did this to blacks after the Republicans freed the blacks from slavery. The democrats tried to keep blacks from exercising their right to vote by imposing "poll taxes" to make it impossible for poor blacks to afford the cost to vote….

Mandatory Insurance does the same thing…..it is a Poll Tax on the right to bear arms.

 

[2aguy]

Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.
Then explain how your unnecessary and undue burden on the constitutionally protected exercise of the right does not infringe upon said right..

What is your objection... If legal gun owners cause no damage why do you object to them paying for their own choices.

Again:
Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.

Accidents...

Do car owners go out to intentionally kill or hurt people (some do and that is criminal) but there is a large part that it is just an accident.

There is also what happens if the gun owner had a few drinks or on prescription medicine and shoots someone due to bad judgement.

This is protect the gun owner who after he loses his home and everything, the victim is still left out of pocket.

This is as much about injury as about death...

Why are you protecting freeloaders over tax payers... Do you want smaller government?

All of those are already handled by civil and criminal law.

Accidental gun deaths in 2013……. 505

gun murder 2014….. 8,124

Crimes stopped by normal gun owners with guns each year…… 1.5 million

Your welcome…now where is our check?

Well on accidents that should be good for keep the cost of insurance down.

You haven't counted gun injuries and the costs of not keeping the gun secure and stuff like that...

But it is nice to see you breaking down the cost and seeing that if you are responsible the price of insurance should be very reasonable...

And on Kellerman…

At the same time that he misuses other people's work, Kellermann refuses to provide the full data for any of his studies so that scholars can evaluate his findings. His critics therefore can judge his results only from the partial data he chooses to publish. Consider a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study that, according to press reports, "showed that keeping a gun in the home nearly triples the likelihood that someone in the household will be slain there." This claim cannot be verified because Kellerman will not release the data. Relying on independent sources to fill gaps in the published data, SUNY-Buffalo's Lawrence Southwick has speculated that Kellermann's full data set would actually vindicate defensive gun ownership. Such issues cannot be resolved without Kellermann's cooperation, but the CDC has refused to require its researchers to part with their data as a condition for taxpayer funding.

Even without access to secret data, it's clear that many of Kellermann's inferences are not justified. In a 1995 JAMA study that was funded by the CDC, he and his colleagues examined 198 incidents in which burglars entered occupied homes in Atlanta. They found that "only three individuals (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-defense"--from which they concluded that guns are rarely used for self-defense. On closer examination, however, Kellermann et al.'s data do not support that conclusion. In 42 percent of the incidents, there was no confrontation between victim and offender because "the offender(s) either left silently or fled when detected." When the burglar left silently, the victim was not even aware of the crime, so he did not have the opportunity to use a gun in self-defense (or to call the police, for that matter). The intruders who "fled when detected" show how defensive gun ownership can protect all victims, armed and unarmed alike, since the possibility of confronting an armed resident encourages burglars to flee.

These 83 no-confrontation incidents should be dropped from Kellermann et al.'s original list of 198 burglaries. Similarly, about 50 percent of U.S. homes do not contain guns, and in 70 percent of the homes that do, the guns are kept unloaded. After eliminating the burglaries where armed self-defense was simply not feasible, Kellermann's 198 incidents shrink to 17, and his 1.5 percent figure for defensive use rises to 17 percent. More important, this study covers only burglaries reported to the police. Since police catch only about 10 percent of home burglars, the only good reason to report a burglary is that police documentation is required to file an insurance claim. But if no property was lost because the burglar fled when the householder brandished a gun, why report the incident? And, aside from the inconvenience, there are strong reasons not to report: The gun may not be registered, or the householder may not be certain that guns can legally be used to repel unarmed burglars. Thus, for all Kellermann knows, successful gun use far exceeds the three incidents reported to police in his Atlanta study.

 

[CowboyTed]

What is your objection... If legal gun owners cause no damage why do you object to them paying for their own choices.

Again:
Not sure how people who do not commit crimes with guns are financially responsible for those who do.
Please present a sound argument to that effect.

Accidents...

Do car owners go out to intentionally kill or hurt people (some do and that is criminal) but there is a large part that it is just an accident.

There is also what happens if the gun owner had a few drinks or on prescription medicine and shoots someone due to bad judgement.

This is protect the gun owner who after he loses his home and everything, the victim is still left out of pocket.

This is as much about injury as about death...

Why are you protecting freeloaders over tax payers... Do you want smaller government?

All of those are already handled by civil and criminal law.

Accidental gun deaths in 2013……. 505

gun murder 2014….. 8,124

Crimes stopped by normal gun owners with guns each year…… 1.5 million

Your welcome…now where is our check?

Well on accidents that should be good for keep the cost of insurance down.

You haven't counted gun injuries and the costs of not keeping the gun secure and stuff like that...

But it is nice to see you breaking down the cost and seeing that if you are responsible the price of insurance should be very reasonable...

Sorry….mandating insurance for the exercise of a civil Right is unconstitutional…….the democrats did this to blacks after the Republicans freed the blacks from slavery. The democrats tried to keep blacks from exercising their right to vote by imposing "poll taxes" to make it impossible for poor blacks to afford the cost to vote….

Mandatory Insurance does the same thing…..it is a Poll Tax on the right to bear arms.

So you want the taxpayers to continue to pay for gun owners accidents and mistakes...
You just want big government paying for everything...

No one is saying they can't have a gun, just like no one is stopping people getting water. It is just a reasonable charge for your actions.

It is like car insurance, no one is saying you can't own a car you just have to get it insured so it protects you and your victim in case of an accident...

What is your objection to stop taxpayers paying for this and making people personally responsible... Because they don't pay for insurance they have no reason to have gun safes, get proper training.....
You are the gun who talk about personal responsibility all the time and stop relying on the government.
This is hypocritical..