Dear NRA, There Is A Scientific Consensus On Guns And Safety. And You Won't Like It.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From the linked article:

'A 2014 meta-analysis, conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco, of the scientific studies on guns and suicide concluded that access to firearms increases the risk of suicide. Similarly, the 2012 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention from the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention and the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that “firearm access is a risk factor for suicide in the United States.”'

There is no doubt that this is both true and accurate, only a ridiculous idiot would attempt to deny this fact.

There is also no doubt that such a fact is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the right of citizens to possess and carry firearms.

Indeed, citizens have a fundamental right to possess and carry firearms pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, as enshrined in the Second Amendment.

And like other rights citizens are not required to 'justify' exercising a right as a 'prerequisite' to in fact do so; government may not seek to preempt, limit, restrict, or deny citizens their rights predicated solely on what citizens 'might' do, such as commit suicide with a firearm – just as government may not seek to prohibit free speech because a citizen 'might' yell fire in a crowded theater, or prohibit citizens to peaceably assemble because someone 'might' incite a riot.

 

[Two Thumbs]

From the linked article:

'A 2014 meta-analysis, conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco, of the scientific studies on guns and suicide concluded that access to firearms increases the risk of suicide. Similarly, the 2012 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention from the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention and the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that “firearm access is a risk factor for suicide in the United States.”'

There is no doubt that this is both true and accurate, only a ridiculous idiot would attempt to deny this fact.

There is also no doubt that such a fact is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the right of citizens to possess and carry firearms.

Indeed, citizens have a fundamental right to possess and carry firearms pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, as enshrined in the Second Amendment.

And like other rights citizens are not required to 'justify' exercising a right as a 'prerequisite' to in fact do so; government may not seek to preempt, limit, restrict, or deny citizens their rights predicated solely on what citizens 'might' do, such as commit suicide with a firearm – just as government may not seek to prohibit free speech because a citizen 'might' yell fire in a crowded theater, or prohibit citizens to peaceably assemble because someone 'might' incite a riot.

SUICIDE DEATH RATE BY COUNTRY

interesting list of facts not theory

N Koreans with Zero access to arms have the second highest suicide rate in the world while the US comes in 47th.

proving, with numbers and facts, that those leftist are a bunch of lying bitches that hate the Constitution and want to see it undone.

 

[Derideo_Te]

N Koreans with Zero access to arms

Two million N Koreans have access to firearms.

Obviously you are allergic to facts and incapable of doing anything but kneejerk emoting.

Since you have nothing of value to contribute to the OP your subsequent drivel will be treated with the contempt that it deserves.

Have a nice day.

 

[Dante]

two thumbs up his arse

it's a circus act

Why do you kill threads ?

Just asking.

while...
imitation is considered one of the most sincerest forms of flattery, coming from you it's pathetic

 

[Dante]

gibberish

leftist demand we be like the eu, constantly.

but I show you success and you cry about something else.

theory v reality, you hate reality

Gun fetishists like you live in a Hollywood fantasy.

so supporting our rights is a fetish now


fyi; I don't own a single gun and never have.

yet I support our Constitution. Why don't you?

Lying only hurts your own credibility.

For most on the right it really doesn't matter, having lost all credibility long ago.

You hate the Constitution, you're opposition, constant opposition, to it is our proof.

but you lie and say you support it, when your actions prove the opposite.

According too the alarmist reactionary known as Two Thumbs us his arse, C_Clayton_Jones is supposed to hate the US Constitution based upon a bunch of some unnamed and unlisted opposition? Is this anything like Uncle Joe McCarthy waving his infamous lists?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.

​

Let the denial begin...

So you ADMIT opinion is now substituted for facts by scientists. Thanks for the admission.

Substituted for facts?

How in the world does somebody with more than 3 brain cells come to that conclusion RetiredGySgt No wonder I used to read you screen names as Retarded Gay Slug

These so called scientists have NO FACTS, they are stating their OPINIONS devoid of actual facts as reported by this paper. That you and your ilk buy it proves who among us are stupid.

 

[Dante]

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.

​

Let the denial begin...

So you ADMIT opinion is now substituted for facts by scientists. Thanks for the admission.

Substituted for facts?

How in the world does somebody with more than 3 brain cells come to that conclusion RetiredGySgt No wonder I used to read you screen names as Retarded Gay Slug

These so called scientists have NO FACTS, they are stating their OPINIONS devoid of actual facts as reported by this paper. That you and your ilk buy it proves who among us are stupid.

... what is it you are missing

My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).​

 

[Anathema]

Just another reason to ignore the Liberal Religion of Science.

Until the Liberals have the support to ammend the Constitution, the science means nothing.

Either way, the only way I'll ever lose my firearms is from my cold, dead hands.

 

[Dante]

Doctor: My opinion is you have an incurable dis-ease

RetiredGYSGT: That's only your opinion

 

[Dante]

the only way I'll ever lose my firearms is from my cold, dead hands.

no one is seriously trying to take all guns away

 

[Anathema]

no one is seriously trying to take all guns away

When the Government tells me I cannot purchase a specific model or type of firearm, or that I must acquire additional, costly licenses to do so, they have already taken those firearms away.

 

[Dante]

no one is seriously trying to take all guns away

When the Government tells me I cannot purchase a specific model or type of firearm, or that I must acquire additional, costly licenses to do so, they have already taken those firearms away.

REally?

You cannot buy and own a cannon

 

[Anathema]

Really?

You cannot buy and own a cannon

In the Communistwealth where I live, I cannot legally purchase firearns which are made, assembled, and tested by friends of mine less than 35 miles from where I live.

 

[Dante]

Really?

You cannot buy and own a cannon

In the Communistwealth where I live, I cannot legally purchase firearns which are made, assembled, and tested by friends of mine less than 35 miles from where I live.

so move and stop being such a whiney f()ck

 

[Anathema]

so move and stop being such a whiney f()ck

The Second Amendment is FEDERAL Law. It should trump ANY/ALL state laws restricting purchase and possession of firearms.

 

[Dante]

so move and stop being such a whiney f()ck

The Second Amendment is FEDERAL Law. It should trump ANY/ALL state laws restricting purchase and possession of firearms.

do you even know wtf you are talking about?

 

[Anathema]

do you even know wtf you are talking about?

I know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Dante]

do you even know wtf you are talking about?

I know exactly what I'm talking about.

you keep telling yourself that junior...keep telling yourself that

 

[flacaltenn]

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.

​

Let the denial begin...

Excuse me.. There's a big difference between political "science" and SCIENCE.
Having the requisite ignorant bliss of science that liberal arts leftists often have -- that might not have occurred to you before you went off on the rant.

There's not a lot of physics or math or chemistry involved in lying with statistics. Which is the basis of most academic work in political or social "science"..

 

[westwall]

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.

​

Let the denial begin...

"Polling" Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!