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

[Procrustes Stretched]

His points, and his bias, are self evident. One plus one still does equal two you know.

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

Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.

One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.

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.
​

So what is there to attack?

Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda

Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The 97% AGW fake statistic that lefties love so much made him think he could do the same for guns.

take your head out of your arse. that trick is now so old

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

His points, and his bias, are self evident. One plus one still does equal two you know.

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

Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.

One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.

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.
​

So what is there to attack?

Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda

Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The 97% AGW fake statistic that lefties love so much made him think he could do the same for guns.

take your head out of your arse. that trick is now so old

Yeah, the fake poll is old.
Was this one better or worse than the 75/77 for AGW?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that

guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to

more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%).

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.

That gun haters don't like the 2nd amendment is their problem. Tough shit if you don't. I have GUNS and bet you don't have the guts to try to take a single one of them.

nobody is trying to take your guns tough guy.

careful you don't shoot yourself in a panic over the boogey man

 

[Conservative65]

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that

guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to

more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%).

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.

That gun haters don't like the 2nd amendment is their problem. Tough shit if you don't. I have GUNS and bet you don't have the guts to try to take a single one of them.

nobody is trying to take your guns tough guy.

careful you don't shoot yourself in a panic over the boogey man

I know you're not stupid enough to try.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

His points, and his bias, are self evident. One plus one still does equal two you know.

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

Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.

One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.

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.
​

So what is there to attack?

Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda

Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The 97% AGW fake statistic that lefties love so much made him think he could do the same for guns.

take your head out of your arse. that trick is now so old

Yeah, the fake poll is old.
Was this one better or worse than the 75/77 for AGW?

whatever are you ranting about now?

Go tell NASA and NOAA that your science says their science is wrong you big dufus

 

[Weatherman2020]

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...

"Scientist" is a leftard buzzword to get you to turn off your brain. It's a self appointed title and there is no so thing as a scientist who thinks guns go around shooting people on their own.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Scientist" is a leftard buzzword to get you to turn off your brain. It's a self appointed title and there is no so thing as a scientist who thinks guns go around shooting people on their own.

Uhm, no one said what you claim...so, I guess --uhm, thanks for playing

 

[Weatherman2020]

"Scientist" is a leftard buzzword to get you to turn off your brain. It's a self appointed title and there is no so thing as a scientist who thinks guns go around shooting people on their own.

Uhm, no one said what you claim...so, I guess --uhm, thanks for playing

Thinking a scientist is the best to understand humanity and evil says all we need to know.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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...

There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.

People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

His points, and his bias, are self evident. One plus one still does equal two you know.

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

Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.

One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.

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.
​

So what is there to attack?

Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda

Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The 97% AGW fake statistic that lefties love so much made him think he could do the same for guns.

take your head out of your arse. that trick is now so old

Yeah, the fake poll is old.
Was this one better or worse than the 75/77 for AGW?

whatever are you ranting about now?

Go tell NASA and NOAA that your science says their science is wrong you big dufus

NASA and NOAA didn't create the 75/77 poll.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

NASA and NOAA didn't create the 75/77 poll.

are you having a one-way conversation with yourself?



again?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

NASA and NOAA didn't create the 75/77 poll.

are you having a one-way conversation with yourself?



again?

Just mocking morons who think a poll = science.
Or that 75/77 means there is a 97% consensus.
Again.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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...

There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.

People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.

Huh?

When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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...

There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.

People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.

Huh?

When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes

Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.

In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.

Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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...

There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.

People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.

Huh?

When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes

Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.

In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.

Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.

You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.

Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.

I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate

 

[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...

There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.

People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.

Huh?

When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes

Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.

In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.

Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.

You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.

Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.

I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate

EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues. Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't. Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.

The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't. Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like. It should be difficult to take a persons rights away. Very difficult. But the tools need to be there to do so. Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, and not violating the rights of people they don't like.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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...

There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.

People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.

Huh?

When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes

Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.

In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.

Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.

You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.

Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.

I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate

EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues. Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't. Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.

The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't. Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like. It should be difficult to take a persons rights away. Very difficult. But the tools need to be there to do so. Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, and not violating the rights of people they don't like.

thanks to he ACLU? Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?

Oh right, your ideological myopia

 

[westwall]

There's another consensus that those with guns who victimize those without, those without call those with as with police. Unfortunately, by the time you're a victim of someone with a gun even the fastest response time imaginable is much too late.

People aren't against guns. Like police having guns it seems to me for how often they call them. I think they're just panicy and prone to blaming the wrong things. You don't blame the car, or the booze for a drunk driver, you blame the driver. But you blame the car and booze equivilent in gun crimes even though that doesn't make any kind of sense.

Huh?

When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes

Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.

In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.

Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.

You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.

Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.

I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate

EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues. Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't. Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.

The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't. Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like. It should be difficult to take a persons rights away. Very difficult. But the tools need to be there to do so. Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, and not violating the rights of people they don't like.

thanks to he ACLU? Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?

Oh right, your ideological myopia

The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth. The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Huh?

When did Dante ever claim people are not to blame? Dante is not blaming guns? But anyone who thinks regulating guns does not help keep guns out of the hands of some nuts and criminals is just not living in the real world. I know lots of criminals who wouldn't touch a gun while committing their crimes

Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.

In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.

Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.

You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.

Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.

I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate

EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues. Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't. Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.

The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't. Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like. It should be difficult to take a persons rights away. Very difficult. But the tools need to be there to do so. Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, and not violating the rights of people they don't like.

thanks to he ACLU? Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?

Oh right, your ideological myopia

The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth. The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.

Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.

The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.

No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations. but Look what we have in the Congress

 

[Derideo_Te]

Guns are a tool. Banning or over-regulating some but not all wont prevent gun-related crimes. Bad guys'll just get whatever's still available.

In their purest form, a gun is simply a metal tube, a firing chamber, and a bullet being forced out of the tube by a small explosion of propellent. It's a many centuries old incredibly simple device unchanged since it's invention. Banning some because one is ignorant about firearms and thinks an assault rifle is a weapon of crime isn't protecting anyone. Many mass shooters used perfectly legal guns never on anyone's ban wishlist. Revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Going after the scarier looking ones reveals an ignorance and immaturity about the subject while doing nothing to deter crime.

Wanna regulate something, keep bad guys in prison their full sentences. If you're running out of room kick out the mandatory setence minimum types out early instead of the violent criminals. Or better yet, nip it in the bud and just execute all violent criminals. Works in China and the Middle East real well.

You're wrong. Handguns were prevalent around me growing up. When handgun laws got tightened there were less guns. No one wanted a mandatory sentence. I have family that was stupid. I was not.

Many mass shooters had pretty obvious mental instability issues. Even had moms shooting with them as therapy. Look at Chris Kyle. What a waste, a tragic waste. But he believed it was ok to be next to a troubled mind he even commented about being spooked in the car ride going to the shooting range. Too many gun lovers are emotionally blind to the real world.

I support concealed carry permits for handguns. I wish some states were not so tough. I think it is cities and towns who grant permits. States and national laws should set tough guidelines for WHO should NOT get a weapon. There is room for sane compromise once the alarmist rhetoric on both sides is pushed out of the debate

EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues. Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't. Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.

The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't. Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like. It should be difficult to take a persons rights away. Very difficult. But the tools need to be there to do so. Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, and not violating the rights of people they don't like.

thanks to he ACLU? Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?

Oh right, your ideological myopia

The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth. The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.

Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.

The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.

No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations. but Look what we have in the Congress

Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.

Second Amendment

American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Gun rights – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.[45][46][47]

Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.

Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.