Fbi Report Ends Nra Nonsense About "good Guys With Guns"

[2aguy]

We can also talk about how Philip Sheridan authorized hunting the bison to near extinction in order to deprive the Plains Indians of a food source.

Still not genocide...since they could and routinely did move...

 

[2aguy]

On the myth of small pox blankets...

The Smallpox-infected Blankets Beyond Highbrow - Robert Lindsay

Turns out, Americans never gave smallpox blankets to any Indians anywhere at anytime. Not the government, not the Army, not anyone. So we are absolved on that one. The incident in question occurred in 1763, before there even was a USA, before there even were Americans. And American colonists (pre-Americans) didn’t do it either. It was the British that done the deed, and the one man who is always accused of doing it never even did it.

Further, it was in the midst of a horrible and genocidal war (on both sides) calledPontiac’s Rebellion, which occurred around the Great Lakes area during this time.

 

[2aguy]

And another account...

The Genocide That Wasn t Ward Churchill s Research Fraud

What Really Happened?

Churchill’s tale of genocide by means of biological warfare is shocking. It is also entirely fraudulent. The only truth in Churchill’s version of the pandemic is the fact that a smallpox outbreak did occur in 1837, and that it was probably carried into the region on board the steamboat St. Peter. Every other detail of Churchill’s story must have come from his imagination, because his own sources contradict him on nearly every point.[11]

 

[JoeB131]

Well, it does if they KNOW the diseases are doing the trick for them. When White Settlers gave the Indians blankets infected with smallpox, they might not have understood germ theory, but they knew what the result was.

You do know there is no record of that happening...right...there was one case at a fort where an indian ally was given a blanket and other supplies from medical stores that may have been infected....but the disease was already in the area...and there was a letter from one British officer to another who wondered if it would be possible but there was no recorded action taken...

Well, not everyone is as good as documenting a Genocide as the Nazis were. And despite all the documentation of the Holocaust, you still have Holocaust deniers.

The Straight Dope Did whites ever give Native Americans blankets infected with smallpox


According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:

P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

Wow. Giving them diseased blankets and hunting them down with Dogs?

Hmmmm. That sounds a bit- Genocidy to me.​

 

[2aguy]

A good discussion here on the myth of the small pox blankets...

How did the British preserve small pox on blankets given to the Native Americans after the French Indian War

You must remember that in the 17th century no one knew how disease actually spread. The discovery of germs was still more than a century away, and the Discovery of virii was still almost 200 years away(discovered in 1930s when electron microscope was invented). It is questionable whether a virus can survive for long periods without a host, most will die (assuming it was alive to begin with as even today there is a question if they are life forms or complex molecules), HIV for example is very fragile and quickly degrades and it is infectious (transmitted by body fluid) others are contagious like flu that can be transmitted through the air. Smallpox is contagious but, the effectiveness of getting it through a blanket is questionable. even more questionable when one realizes that the people of the 17th century would not have known to take any special actions to keep the virus viable.

 

[JoeB131]

Not really.

Just because Germ theory hadn't been invented yet, people back then knew you burned things that had belonged to plague victims. unless you wanted to give someone else the plague.

 

[2aguy]

The only evidence...in a supposed "genocidal" spread of a disease...is one letter...from one officer to another...that's it...there was no policy...not further follow up...nothing...and yet...that is perpetuating the myth....considering they would have had to transport those disease ridden blankets themselves...through their own populations of people they liked...right...

And you say they knew to burn infected materials...because they didn't understand how it spread...so knowing they should burn infected blankets...they saved them...stored them...allowed their own soldiers and civilians to interact with these blankets...and you think it actually happened?

 

[Jarlaxle]

[
Nowhere is it implied one must belong to a militia in order to own a firearm.

I've previously posted an examination of the second amendment's language go look it up.

Yeah, and I don't buy it. Bearing Arms meant having organized military units.

Or as a Founding Slave Rapist might say, "A well-regulated Militia".

Come on, Thomas Jefferson didn't want Sally Hemmings to have a gun before he raped the shit out of her.

The word "Gun" "Rifle" or "Firearm" appear nowhere in that amendment.

...................
did you inherit your stupidity thru gene therapy or is it a family trait ?

................. you are so full of

Possibly a side affect of the drugs he uses?

 

[turtledude]

[

Yeah, sure you do.

Is there really anything else to say? ALL of your arguments have been destroyed completely. You keep trying desperately, but unfortunately for you, I think you have no arguments against our second amendment rights.

Sure I do.

the word "Gun" doesn't appear anywhere in the Second Amendment.

"bear arms" means keeping a militia. Not private gun ownership.

1) every major league constitutional law professor-liberals like Amar included-disagree with you

2) the supreme court disagrees with you

so you are a moron

 

[turtledude]

[
your stupid study would mean that there were 43 million deaths because killing a thug is not the only way a weapon stops crime

that study was debunked

only morons and dishonest assholes repeat it

Well, no, t here's no real evidence guns stop crimes, other than bogus studies by the NRA and the Gun Lobby that detail how having a gun made a guy like you with a tiny pecker feel better.

The real statistic- only 200 gun deaths r uled 'Justifiable" when civilians were doing the shooting.

Compared to 19,500 suicides, 11,101 murders and 800 accidents.

Hey panty soiler

everytime a crime is prevented by an armed citizen, its a win. It doesn't matter if the criminal is killed, wounded, or soils his pants, the citizen is saved

 

[JoeB131]

[

2) the supreme court disagrees with you

so you are a moron

Uh, no, 5 out of 9 justices disagree with me. Which means that four did agree with me.

Scalia takes a dirt nap, it goes the other way.

Now if 9 out of 9 agreed with you, you might have a point.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Hey panty soiler

everytime a crime is prevented by an armed citizen, its a win. It doesn't matter if the criminal is killed, wounded, or soils his pants, the citizen is saved

Uh, no.

Accepting that there really are X number of DGUs that ended in no one being killed, (I don't), then that crook just goes down the block and victimizes someone else.

So really, on balance, no one was "Saved".

 

[turtledude]

[
Hey panty soiler

everytime a crime is prevented by an armed citizen, its a win. It doesn't matter if the criminal is killed, wounded, or soils his pants, the citizen is saved

Uh, no.

Accepting that there really are X number of DGUs that ended in no one being killed, (I don't), then that crook just goes down the block and victimizes someone else.

So really, on balance, no one was "Saved".

that is sort of like cases where a background check prevents someone from buying a gun from a seller who does the BGC but then the buyer gets a gun from another source

nothing happened to help public safety.

I deal at an individual level. If the gun saves me from an assault that is good If the mope then assaults someone like you-that's your fault

 

[2aguy]

Uh, no, 5 out of 9 justices disagree with me. Which means that four did agree with me.

Scalia takes a dirt nap, it goes the other way.

Now if 9 out of 9 agreed with you, you might have a point.

Thanks for highlighting my point that pro self defense, 2nd amendment supporters need, need to go out and vote republican this election for the Senate...they are the ones who will confirm any judges through the last 2 years of obama and the first term of hilary if she is elected...and they will nominate anti gun judges at all levels of the judiciary....

 

[2aguy]

A

ccepting that there really are X number of DGUs that ended in no one being killed, (I don't), then that crook just goes down the block and victimizes someone else.

So really, on balance, no one was "Saved".

Well, the person who was smart enough to know that one day they might be a victim of a violent thug, and got a permit to carry a gun...they are saved 2.5 million times a year....the sap who decided it was dumb to get a gun and training...they are the ones who lose out...and get raped, robbed, brutally beaten, maimed and murdered....

 

[turtledude]

A

ccepting that there really are X number of DGUs that ended in no one being killed, (I don't), then that crook just goes down the block and victimizes someone else.

So really, on balance, no one was "Saved".

Well, the person who was smart enough to know that one day they might be a victim of a violent thug, and got a permit to carry a gun...they are saved 2.5 million times a year....the sap who decided it was dumb to get a gun and training...they are the ones who lose out...and get raped, robbed, brutally beaten, maimed and murdered....

In a just world, only the sheep would be screwed by the wolf-those of us who are wolf hounds wouldn't have to clean up the mess of wolf remains on our carpet

 

[2aguy]

Some actual research into the FBI report...

The incredibly flawed FBI study on active shooters CPRC original research - Crime Prevention Research Center

But the FBI made a number of subtle and misleading decisions as well as outright errors. Once these biases and mistakes are fixed, the annual growth rate in homicides is cut in half. When a longer period of time is examined (1977 through the first half of 2014), deaths from Mass Public Shootings show only a slight, statistically insignificant, increase – an annual increase of less than one percent.
The FBI’s misleadingly includes cases that aren’t mass shootings – cases where no one or only one person was killed in a public place. While the FBI assures people that it “captured the vast majority of incidents falling within the search criteria,” their report missed 20 shootings where at least two people were killed in a public place. Most of these missing cases took place early on, biasing their results towards showing an increase.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Hey panty soiler

everytime a crime is prevented by an armed citizen, its a win. It doesn't matter if the criminal is killed, wounded, or soils his pants, the citizen is saved

Uh, no.

Accepting that there really are X number of DGUs that ended in no one being killed, (I don't), then that crook just goes down the block and victimizes someone else.

So really, on balance, no one was "Saved".

that is sort of like cases where a background check prevents someone from buying a gun from a seller who does the BGC but then the buyer gets a gun from another source

nothing happened to help public safety.

I deal at an individual level. If the gun saves me from an assault that is good If the mope then assaults someone like you-that's your fault

Or we can just ban all civilian gun ownership like every other civilized country has done. That works, too.

 

[JoeB131]

A

ccepting that there really are X number of DGUs that ended in no one being killed, (I don't), then that crook just goes down the block and victimizes someone else.

So really, on balance, no one was "Saved".

Well, the person who was smart enough to know that one day they might be a victim of a violent thug, and got a permit to carry a gun...they are saved 2.5 million times a year....the sap who decided it was dumb to get a gun and training...they are the ones who lose out...and get raped, robbed, brutally beaten, maimed and murdered....

So, again, what you are saying as long as it's someone else's problem, that's fine with you.

Besides the fact you are outright making shit up when you claim 2.5 million DGU's, the fact is, if there are so few incidents when you have to use the gun tells me they aren't needed.

 

[Rotagilla]

Or we can just ban all civilian gun ownership like every other civilized country has done. That works, too.

Ever heard of "Switzerland"? Mandatory gun ownership.