CDZ Fear and guns....a discussion.

[Elvis Obama]

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

They just added that to please Obama, I'm sure. Lol. The fact of the matter is, the second amendment is a right and has been since the United States was founded.

Guns don't make people into criminals. You and others have no right to restrict any ONE of rights because of what criminals and murderers might do.

That reply is utterly without thought. I made no mention of criminals or the second amendment. My point, which you consistently refuse to address, is that the congressional blockage of CDC research is absolute proof of the cowardice of the pro-gun people. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find? Yes or no.

And I think you are being thoroughly dishonest. You want the Centers for Disease Control to conduct research on guns and you claim it has nothing to do with impacting gun usage?

I claim that only paranoiacs fear letting the CDC conduct research.

 

[ChrisL]

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

And are you one of those people who goes around ranting about the police being racists and "institutionalized racism?"

Are you utterly incapable of focusing on a single subject. Or are you simply incapable of admitting when anyone makes a point you disagree with? For the record, no, I don't complain about police racism or institutional racism. See? I answered you question. Now answer mine. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find if they conduct further research? Yes or no.

What do you think I would be afraid of?? The point is, they already had an opportunity to "find something bad." They failed to do so. In fact, the study came out supporting the use of guns for self defense in many circumstances. Much more than what was originally thought, in fact.

What more would you like them to study? Is there something else?

 

[ChrisL]

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

And are you one of those people who goes around ranting about the police being racists and "institutionalized racism?"

Are you utterly incapable of focusing on a single subject. Or are you simply incapable of admitting when anyone makes a point you disagree with? For the record, no, I don't complain about police racism or institutional racism. See? I answered you question. Now answer mine. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find if they conduct further research? Yes or no.

Just a question, and it is pertinent to the discussion.

 

[Rouge Rover]

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

And are you one of those people who goes around ranting about the police being racists and "institutionalized racism?"

Are you utterly incapable of focusing on a single subject. Or are you simply incapable of admitting when anyone makes a point you disagree with? For the record, no, I don't complain about police racism or institutional racism. See? I answered you question. Now answer mine. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find if they conduct further research? Yes or no.

You won't answer the question put to you, why should Chris? What does CDC stand for and how does that possibly impact at all on gun research?

 

[ChrisL]

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

And are you one of those people who goes around ranting about the police being racists and "institutionalized racism?"

Are you utterly incapable of focusing on a single subject. Or are you simply incapable of admitting when anyone makes a point you disagree with? For the record, no, I don't complain about police racism or institutional racism. See? I answered you question. Now answer mine. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find if they conduct further research? Yes or no.

Now, now, no need to start getting angry. Next you will be resorting to insults. Remember where you are.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

Carrying a gun when going into a situation that could be dangerous is rational. Carrying a gun every moment you are outside your door... that is fear.

Carrying a gun every moment you are outside your door... that is fear.

"Uh, hey bud, can you give me about 20 minutes to go home and get my gun, so I can defend myself?"

A situation you assume is bound to happen. Because you live in fear.

Sad.

Fear is a strong emotion......can you explain how strong the emotion is when a rational decision is made? Like I said.....I have as much emotional involvement in clipping on a pistol as I do with my cell phone....

but mention AR-15s....a gun just about never used in crime.....and you guys want all 3,750,000 completely banned forever......

How is that not actual fear?

So you admit that a law abiding citizen carry a weapon scares you. Interesting.

 

[ChrisL]

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

It is a political move and a political issue. Mass shootings are less than 0.1% of ALL deaths in the United States.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

And are you one of those people who goes around ranting about the police being racists and "institutionalized racism?"

Are you utterly incapable of focusing on a single subject. Or are you simply incapable of admitting when anyone makes a point you disagree with? For the record, no, I don't complain about police racism or institutional racism. See? I answered you question. Now answer mine. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find if they conduct further research? Yes or no.

Now, now, no need to start getting angry. Next you will be resorting to insults. Remember where you are.

Remember where you are. This is the Clean Debate Zone. If you want to debate, do it. If not, go away. When someone asks you a question you cannot answer rationally, you spout irrelevant, tangential, thoughtless NRA talking points instead of addressing the question.

Once again, Do you think the CDC should be prevented by congress from doing their job? Yes or no?

 

[ChrisL]

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

The study was requested by a sitting POTUS to further an agenda. If the CDC was serious about preventing deaths, they would be looking at our psychiatric/mental health status. THAT is the reason why people kill. It's not because of the tool they chose to carry out their murders. The tool is not the cause of the violence. It doesn't take a doctor or a CDC employee (who a lot are just BUREAUCRATS anyways), or a genius to know this.

 

[Rouge Rover]

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

Yes, I do want to engage in a discussion about what a disease is as long as you want to link a Constitutional right to research conducted by people who deal with communicable disease.

 

[ChrisL]

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

And are you one of those people who goes around ranting about the police being racists and "institutionalized racism?"

Are you utterly incapable of focusing on a single subject. Or are you simply incapable of admitting when anyone makes a point you disagree with? For the record, no, I don't complain about police racism or institutional racism. See? I answered you question. Now answer mine. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find if they conduct further research? Yes or no.

Now, now, no need to start getting angry. Next you will be resorting to insults. Remember where you are.

Remember where you are. This is the Clean DebateI Zone. If you want to debate, do it. If not, go away. When someone asks you a question you cannot answer rationally, you spout irrelevant, tangential, thoughtless NRA talking points instead of addressing the question.

Once again, Do you think the CDC should be prevented by congress from doing their job? Yes or no?

And I asked you a question first, which you still haven't answered. What more is there to study?

 

[Rouge Rover]

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

The study was requested by a sitting POTUS to further an agenda. If the CDC was serious about preventing deaths, they would be looking at our psychiatric/mental health status. THAT is the reason why people kill. It's not because of the tool they chose to carry out their murders. The tool is not the cause of the violence. It doesn't take a doctor or a CDC employee (who a lot are just BUREAUCRATS anyways), or a genius to know this.

I have to disagree here, the CDC shouldn't be dealing with psychiatric issues either.

 

[ChrisL]

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

And are you one of those people who goes around ranting about the police being racists and "institutionalized racism?"

Are you utterly incapable of focusing on a single subject. Or are you simply incapable of admitting when anyone makes a point you disagree with? For the record, no, I don't complain about police racism or institutional racism. See? I answered you question. Now answer mine. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find if they conduct further research? Yes or no.

Now, now, no need to start getting angry. Next you will be resorting to insults. Remember where you are.

Remember where you are. This is the Clean DebateI Zone. If you want to debate, do it. If not, go away. When someone asks you a question you cannot answer rationally, you spout irrelevant, tangential, thoughtless NRA talking points instead of addressing the question.

Once again, Do you think the CDC should be prevented by congress from doing their job? Yes or no?

You know that bombs are cheaper, more convenient to kill a lot of people and are the tool of choice in third world countries where they may not be able to afford guns? Yup! Hundreds are killed in marketplaces, etc., as they innocently gather. Where there is a will, there is always going to be a way. Taking away rights from the law abiding citizens does nothing but make us sitting ducks because the criminals are always going to be there.

 

[emilynghiem]

I live in the Great Country of Australia

Ah the former prison colony no wonder they ban guns you're all the descended from criminals

Oh, that's true, isn't it? I had forgotten about that little factoid. Explains a lot. Lol.

Trouble IS that prior to TRANSPORTING PEOPLE TO AUSTRALIA.....THEY WERE SENT FOR YEARS TO AMERICA......see how the liq,educates Dumb Ass Americans.......You need to put your BRAIN into GEAR before OPENING THAT MOUTH OF YOURS........Don't Ya

Nobody cares about Australia. Lol. NOBODY. We can see that you are playing with less than a full deck. Must be hereditary.

Funny how we in the US do not obsess about the laws in other countries the way people in other countries obsess about ours

I wonder why that is.

Skull Pilot
The US Constitutional laws are to the natural laws of the Gentiles
what the Bible is to the Mosaic law of the Jews.

These are the best we have "in writing" of the
basic principles of democratic governance under
natural laws that in the large context apply to all humanity.

In this situation, the US laws made statutory in writing
technically apply only to US citizens and "persons
under state jurisdiction" but in SPIRIT the CONCEPTS
are universal and apply to all people. Similar the literal
laws in the Bible only apply to Jews and Christian followers
who subscribe and commit to them, but in spirit the process
of Restorative Justice symbolized in the Bible applies to all humanity.

Given our free speech/press/right to petition to redress
grievances via democratic due process, the US serves as a model to what can be established in practice towards "equal justice under law"
ideally for all people, if we can even get this right in the US

Dear ChrisL and theliq
Thanks for the reminder this is the CDZ and I'm sorry we got off topic.
This helped indirectly to get the spirit of where each of us is coming from. It helps the discussion to know theliq context as not being a US citizen, but being military and given the independent culture of AU,
this still explains why theliq and I still connect in terms of
NATURAL LAWS.

ChrisL since the US laws are inspired by Natural Laws
that are universal to all human nature, then if we stick to this
level of interpretation, purpose and spirit/meaning of our laws,
we can actually connect despite our differences that don't conflict
with the base laws that govern us all.

I hope we get the communication and focus on track,
but feel the diversions were a necessary way to get to know
each other so we could communicate on point. Even the humor
that had nothing directly to do with the topic had everything to
do with understanding the cultural mindset and approach.

Thanks and this DOES demonstrate that when we overcome
FEAR that divides us, then we don't have to take sides and battle out politically as right and wrong, them vs. us.

We can even be of different countries under different laws
and agree in the spirit of NATURAL LAWS that the US
Constitutional principles and process was based on.

Very good!

We showed that by connecting directly, we can overcome
the FEAR of someone being a political adversary that
throws off the interaction; we need to be able to discuss
and collaborate, and this fear thing doesn't have to be an issue.

This exchange shows we don't have to let the politics get
"fear-driven" to divide the sides, but we can discuss rationally
and work it out, even given our polar opposite differences,
that doesn't have to be a divisive conflict politically.

Thanks for showing that!
Yours truly, Emily

SEE ethics-commission.net
theliq I will dedicate this song post to you under that USMB thread for dedications to fellow board members:
Constitution Song: To the Tune of Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen
If you prefer meaner humor poking fun at insance US party politics:
Occupy this Spoof

Again this sidetrack about humor is another way to
overcome FEAR, so it is indirectly tied to the OP
by DEMONSTRATING how theliq and me sharing
a sense of humor helps diffuse any FEAR-based politics in the way
of a meaningful insightful discussion on the topic of guns

 

[Rouge Rover]

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

And are you one of those people who goes around ranting about the police being racists and "institutionalized racism?"

Are you utterly incapable of focusing on a single subject. Or are you simply incapable of admitting when anyone makes a point you disagree with? For the record, no, I don't complain about police racism or institutional racism. See? I answered you question. Now answer mine. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find if they conduct further research? Yes or no.

Now, now, no need to start getting angry. Next you will be resorting to insults. Remember where you are.

Remember where you are. This is the Clean DebateI Zone. If you want to debate, do it. If not, go away. When someone asks you a question you cannot answer rationally, you spout irrelevant, tangential, thoughtless NRA talking points instead of addressing the question.

Once again, Do you think the CDC should be prevented by congress from doing their job? Yes or no?

People have to agree on what the CDC's job is before we can determine if they're being prevented from doing their job.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

It is a political move and a political issue. Mass shootings are less than 0.1% of ALL deaths in the United States.

What is a political move? The CDC studying gun deaths? You just admitted that their preliminary study backs up some of your beliefs. Mass shootings have not been mentioned, and have nothing to do with this discussion. It's up to the CDC to determine where their efforts are best focused, not a bunch of know-it-alls on a forum board.

I believe that the CDC should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

 

[ChrisL]

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

The study was requested by a sitting POTUS to further an agenda. If the CDC was serious about preventing deaths, they would be looking at our psychiatric/mental health status. THAT is the reason why people kill. It's not because of the tool they chose to carry out their murders. The tool is not the cause of the violence. It doesn't take a doctor or a CDC employee (who a lot are just BUREAUCRATS anyways), or a genius to know this.

I have to disagree here, the CDC shouldn't be dealing with psychiatric issues either.

Well, mental illness is considered a disease, and after you have been around this forum for a bit, you will see what a HUGE epidemic it really is. Lol.

 

[BULLDOG]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

ALL GUNS ARE WRONG IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY

Dear theliq
I would agree with you that the purpose and best use of arms
is for defense and deterrence, where ideally they don't have to be used at all.

I have met many police and peace officers who carry guns for dangerous situations that may require that,
but they don't depend on that, and do most of their deterrence and police work
by breaking up confrontations or preventing them completely CIVILLY.

You are right, for the most part the guns are not used but are there so they won't have to be!
That's the way it should be.

However, can you show a me a civilized society
that didn't still have criminally aggressive people who were effectively deterred by police carrying guns?

Because society and people aren't perfect, and there are still criminal people who
don't get help in advance, but are only discovered after they cause threats or problems to people,
then guns are still necessary in case of emergencies.

As we progress, and we can diagnose treat and cure the causes of criminal illness and behavior,
we can do more and more of the correctional work in advance and by civil means.

We won't have to rely so much on the point of confrontation with police,
or wait until after someone has stalked and killed people and is going to prison
BEFORE we get sick people help at the first sign of criminal abuse or dangerous addiction.

Until then, guns are still necessary, but in the right hands
of trained officers, they won't necessarily need to be used.

I completely agree with you Emily....Law Enforcement,The Military and some Proper Gun Clubs should have the ability to carry a Gun......but NO ONE else,steve but I can't see it happening in the US,so many folk think it's safer to carry a Gun.........Which is Totally Mental when you think about it,just sayin

Hi theliq
What is wrong with training security guards and other citizens
using the same process, including screening, required of police and military?

That's like training more people to do CPR or use a defibrillator,
instead of only the professional EMS, doctors and nurses.

Anyone can take lifeguard training, but there ARE certain steps you do and don't do.
The safety precautions HAVE to be followed, such as not letting a drowning person take you under.
Same with CPR and other first aid / first response procedures that have to be followed,
such as not moving a person with a possible head/spinal injury.

It doesn't make the training any less rigorous just because the person isn't a paid professional.
Why can the training, oath and screening required of officers and militaries
be offered to (or required of) ALL citizens who want this same responsibility for using arms for defense?

In answer to your last paragraph, Emily, that's what NRA is all about along with gun range instructors. Military people learn about guns and gun safety and it sticks with them for life.

That's what the NRA used to be about. Continued training and psychological evaluation should be required for anyone who intends to be a self appointed police officer.

 

[ChrisL]

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

It is a political move and a political issue. Mass shootings are less than 0.1% of ALL deaths in the United States.

What is a political move? The CDC studying gun deaths? You just admitted that their preliminary study backs up some of your beliefs. Mass shootings have not been mentioned, and have nothing to do with this discussion. It's up to the CDC to determine where their efforts are best focused, not a bunch of know-it-alls on a forum board.

I believe that the CDC should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

Just because it turned out in favor of the people instead of the government does not mean it was NOT politically motivated. Of course it was! Come on! If you can't be honest about that fact, then I'm sorry, I have to consider you to be a dishonest individual with an agenda that goes against the rights of we the people of the United States of America.