Gun registration in California? They just signed a law giving gun owner information to outside parties..

[Donald H]

Definitely. Guns take lives much more then they save lives.

It's an open and shut case against guns. Saving lives is proven to be a false narrative!

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's an open and shut case against guns. Saving lives is proven to be a false narrative!

^^^
This is a lie.

 

[Donald H]

Harvard study

8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.

We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com

 

[Man of Ethics]

It's an open and shut case against guns. Saving lives is proven to be a false narrative!

Agree 100%. Those who support guns enable murder and suicide.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Agree 100%. Those who support guns enable murder and suicide.

^^^^
This is a lie.

 

[Abatis]

America needs to start paying attention! Regardless of who is doing the shooting, there's no doubt there's far too much shooting in which innocent people are the victims too.

There are many people paying attention. Problem is, where gun crime is rampant, the people in leadership are consumed with agendas that are not focused on crime reduction.

At least you acknowledge the slaughter of Americans by gun, even though you attach your political spin to it.

One can't "pay attention" to the problem without noticing the politics that drives the problem.

You assign "political spin" as much if not more than anyone; you assign blame for run-away gun crime in Democrat-run, criminal coddling hellholes, on non-urban, law-abiding conservatives that support gun rights.

That is Hadron Collider level political spin.

.

 

[Abatis]

WOW!

Ethics is a relative concept. What is Ethical in one culture/subculture may be unethical in another.

But enabling murder and suicide would seem unethical to me.

You keep pushing that word, "enabling" but it really doesn't work.

If you want to see what "enabling murder" looks like look up the practices of any of the Soros backed District Attorneys in so many crime-riddled cities in the USA.

That's what "enabling" looks like . . .

 

[2aguy]

Hopefully, governments which have nuclear weapons are 100% responsible.

Yeah...."responsible" is exactly what you call china and russia.....and North Korea...

 

[2aguy]

The deaths by gun is the same result.
And in instances of a person not defending him/herself with a gun, there are fewer deaths as a result.

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

The evidence is overwhelmingly against the use of guns and that's not just in home burglaries.
Just one example:

And that is a lie.....

The actual research...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey

 

[2aguy]

The deaths by gun is the same result.
And in instances of a person not defending him/herself with a gun, there are fewer deaths as a result.

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

The evidence is overwhelmingly against the use of guns and that's not just in home burglaries.
Just one example:

More...

http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/2

How Often Are Guns Used Defensively?

One of the most powerful narratives gun advocates have on their side is the image of a woman pulling a handgun out of her clutch to prevent a rape, or a man cocking a shotgun at a burglar to defend his family.

Many social scientists who research this issue of "defensive gun use" (DGUs) say such scenarios are vanishingly rare, arguing that owning a gun is more likely to lead to harm for the owner than be his or her savior in a pinch.

There are no even halfway thorough documentations of every such event in America. They are not all going to end up reported in the media or to the police. The FBI and the CDC will have no reason to record or learn about the vast majority of times a crime was prevented by the potential victim being armed. So our best estimates come from surveys.

The survey work most famous for establishing a large number of DGUs—as many as 2.5 million a year—was conducted in 1993 by the Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Kleck says they found 222 bonafide DGUs directly via a randomized anonymous nationwide telephone survey of around 5,000 people. The defender had to "state a specific crime they thought was being committed" and to have actually made use of the weapon, even if just threateningly or by "verbally referring to the gun." Kleck insists the surveyors were scrupulous about eliminating any responses that seemed sketchy or questionable or didn't hold up under scrutiny.

Extrapolating from their results, Kleck and Gertz concluded that 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs happened in the U.S. each year. In a 2001 edition of his book Armed, Kleck wrote that "there are now at least nineteen professional surveys, seventeen of them national in scope, that indicate huge numbers of defensive gun uses in the U.S." The one that most closely matched Kleck's methods, though the sample size was only half and the surveyors were not experienced with crime surveys, was 1994's National Survey of the Private Ownership of Firearms. It was sponsored by the U.S. Justice Department and found even more, when explicitly limiting them to ones that met the same criteria as Kleck's study—4.7 million (though the research write-up contains some details that may make you wonder about the accuracy of the reports, including one woman who reported 52 separate DGUs in a year).

The major outlier in the other direction, nearly always relied on for those downplaying the defensive benefits of guns, is the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), a nationally representative telephone survey, which tends to find less than 70,000 DGUs per year.

In the October 2015 special issue on "gun violence prevention," Preventive Medicine featured the latest and most thorough attempt to treat the NCVS as the gold standard for measuring defensive gun usage. The study, by Harvard's Hemenway and Sara J. Solnick of the University of Vermont, broke down the characteristics of the small number of DGUs recorded by the NCVS from 2007 to 2011. The authors found, among other things, that "Of the 127 incidents in which victims used a gun in self-defense, they were injured after they used a gun in 4.1% of the incidents. Running away and calling the police were associated with a reduced likelihood of injury after taking action; self-defense gun use was not." That sounds not so great, but Hemenway went on to explain that "attacking or threatening the perpetrator with a gun had no significant effect on the likelihood of the victim being injured after taking self-protective action," since slightly more people who tried non-firearm means of defending themselves were injured. Thus, for those who place value on self-defense and resistance over running, the use of a weapon doesn't seem too bad comparatively; Hemenway found that 55.9 percent of victims who took any kind of protective action lost property, but only 38.5 percent of people who used a gun in self-defense did.

Kleck thinks the National Crime Victimization Survey disagrees so much with his own survey because NCVS researchers aren't looking for DGUs, or even asking about them in so many words. The survey merely asks those who said "yes" to having been a crime victim whether they "did or tried to do" something about it. (You might not consider yourself a "victim" of a crime you have successfully prevented.) Kleck surmises that people might be reluctant to admit to possibly criminal action on their own part (especially since the vast majority of crime victimizations occurred outside the home, where the legality of gun possession might be questionable) to a government surveyor after they've given their name and address. And as he argued in a Politico article in February 2015, experienced surveyors in criminology are sure that "survey respondents underreport (1) crime victimization experiences, (2) gun ownership and (3) their own illegal behavior."

The social science quest for the One True DGU Number is interesting but ultimately irrelevant to those living out those specific stories, who would doubtless be perplexed to hear they shouldn't have the capacity to defend themselves with a gun because an insufficiently impressive number of other citizens had done the same. Even if the facts gleaned from gun social science were unfailingly accurate, that wouldn't make such policy decisions purely scientific.

 

[2aguy]

Harvard study

Hemenway?

He is a known anti-gun stooge......his research is the shoddiest of all of them....

 

[JoeB131]

I gave you the lives and money saved….

Yes, you gave me the usual bullshit.. but this funny thing. All the countries that ban guns don't have these problems.

The Classical Liberal / Enlightenment concept of "rights" is well developed, well explained and well represented in the philosophical, historical and legal foundation and execution of the USA's founding and Constitution.

To say "there are no rights" only demonstrates a child-like denial of things that you don't understand or simply don't like.

That you then develop positions on public policy from such infantile understanding is amusing; that you defend your authoritarian and discriminatory public policy positions so ardently should stand as a warning and a undeniable proof, of why the right to keep and bear arms is so vital to people who cherish liberty.

You left out the part where I discussed Japanese-Americans in 1942. 110,000 Americans were denied all their rights simply because their parents or grandparents were born in Japan. Rights meant nothing when the majority felt the meant nothing. Oh, 40 years of soul searching, we felt bad about it later, driving our Toyotas and listening to our Sony Walkmans and we gave these people $11,000 and said, "No hard feelings, eh?"

There are no rights. There are only privileges the rest of society begrudgingly thinks you should have.

The more you guys stomp your little feet after every mass shooting and scream, "But the founding fathers SAID we can have guns!!!!" the worse it's going to be.

No, you are wrong on every level. You throw out these bald assertions of hard, legal truth and then refuse to show the hard, legal support for that position. Why should anyone think you know what you are talking about when you refuse to demonstrate any knowledge of the law you are making claims about?

I alrady pointed out US v. Miller stated that there was a constitutional basis for gun control. Full stop. Done. Mike drop. That Scalia took the crazy NRA position doesn't take away from that.

Why can't I have a howitzer that shoots anthrax shells? I mean, right to bear arms, right?

That you continue to throw out absurdities like this, that you need to so disingenuously frame an opponent's position, screams to the board that you have no ability to consider the issue from an adult's understanding.

I agree, letting Joker Holmes buy a gun is absurd, but he was able to do it.

If you take the position that gun ownership is a "right", then why can't the guy who thinks he's The Joker own a gun?

If it isn't a right, then we are agreed that some people should be prevented from owning guns. It's just where we draw the line.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, you gave me the usual bullshit.. but this funny thing. All the countries that ban guns don't have these problems.



You left out the part where I discussed Japanese-Americans in 1942. 110,000 Americans were denied all their rights simply because their parents or grandparents were born in Japan. Rights meant nothing when the majority felt the meant nothing. Oh, 40 years of soul searching, we felt bad about it later, driving our Toyotas and listening to our Sony Walkmans and we gave these people $11,000 and said, "No hard feelings, eh?"

There are no rights. There are only privileges the rest of society begrudgingly thinks you should have.

The more you guys stomp your little feet after every mass shooting and scream, "But the founding fathers SAID we can have guns!!!!" the worse it's going to be.



I alrady pointed out US v. Miller stated that there was a constitutional basis for gun control. Full stop. Done. Mike drop. That Scalia took the crazy NRA position doesn't take away from that.

Why can't I have a howitzer that shoots anthrax shells? I mean, right to bear arms, right?



I agree, letting Joker Holmes buy a gun is absurd, but he was able to do it.

If you take the position that gun ownership is a "right", then why can't the guy who thinks he's The Joker own a gun?

If it isn't a right, then we are agreed that some people should be prevented from owning guns. It's just where we draw the line.

The countries that banned guns murdered their own people...

Europe...12 million
Russia...25 million
China....70 million
Japan....3 million

Numbers that are more than 82 years of criminals murdering other criminals with guns in the U.S....

 

[Abatis]

You left out the part where I discussed Japanese-Americans in 1942. 110,000 Americans were denied all their rights simply because their parents or grandparents were born in Japan.

Having a "right" does not mean that government is incapable of doing something horrible, the acceptance of that truth is the primary principle of the Constitution. The Constitution is a contract that has as its most important purpose, limiting the powers of government to only what is included in the contract, to only what the people have chosen to grant to it.

Having a "right" means there is a means and mechanism to correct government abuse of power and even punish those in government or government itself for egregious illegiimate acts.

The exercise of powers not granted is illegitimate and could, when those abuses have piled up and the people have reached their limit, force the nullification of the contract by the people and the reclaiming of all the powers originally conferred. If that reclaiming of power can not be completed without violence, the people retain the right to keep and bear arms and can eliminate the usurpers.

There are no rights. There are only privileges the rest of society begrudgingly thinks you should have.

Hmmmmmm . . . What if the conveyance you see as "allowing" the people to do these things (let's call it a "Constitution") is predicated on certain fixed and unalterable principles that demand government treat the people as the origin of all government power and that the powers of government are only borrowed from the people and the people retain the powers they did not confer as rights and government only possesses those powers for as long as government respects those rights and serves the people?

I mean on general philosophy I can't argue against (beyond semantics) your statement that "the rest of society begrudgingly thinks you should have" certain exemptions of government exerting power on you. We just disagree that the societal agreement that recognizes the people can act beyond the direct control of government either comes from the people or is a permission given to us from government (a permission that can be licensed, limited or rescinded for any reason "society" deems necessary).

I believe "We the People" are sovereign and the master of government; you believe government is our absolute master and we have no cause or course to question government's actions or demands.

So when one tears away the facade, YOU are the one that believes the Constitution is a suicide pact . . . We are stuck with government no matter how far it wanders for the contract that established it, or if it alters on a whim what we are "allowed" to do, we must meekly comply or we will be eliminated.

.

 

[Polishprince]

Yes, you gave me the usual bullshit.. but this funny thing. All the countries that ban guns don't have these problems.



You left out the part where I discussed Japanese-Americans in 1942. 110,000 Americans were denied all their rights simply because their parents or grandparents were born in Japan. Rights meant nothing when the majority felt the meant nothing. Oh, 40 years of soul searching, we felt bad about it later, driving our Toyotas and listening to our Sony Walkmans and we gave these people $11,000 and said, "No hard feelings, eh?"

There are no rights. There are only privileges the rest of society begrudgingly thinks you should have.

The more you guys stomp your little feet after every mass shooting and scream, "But the founding fathers SAID we can have guns!!!!" the worse it's going to be.



I alrady pointed out US v. Miller stated that there was a constitutional basis for gun control. Full stop. Done. Mike drop. That Scalia took the crazy NRA position doesn't take away from that.

Why can't I have a howitzer that shoots anthrax shells? I mean, right to bear arms, right?



I agree, letting Joker Holmes buy a gun is absurd, but he was able to do it.

If you take the position that gun ownership is a "right", then why can't the guy who thinks he's The Joker own a gun?

If it isn't a right, then we are agreed that some people should be prevented from owning guns. It's just where we draw the line.

Firearms are the great equalizer, Joe.

I'm 65 years old and not getting any younger. I guess I'm ok for someone of my age, but I get more decrepit every day as time marches on.

When I leave my domicile, I would be a sitting duck and an easy mark for the criminal element, except for the fact that I am armed to the teeth.

Some thug comes up to me with a gun, I stand a chance with my little friend. Might I still get killed? Sure- but I definitely stand a chance against some crack head punk.

Banning firearms would confine old people to their homes if they can't afford a body guard.


Sure, when I was young I could rumble a lot better. But even then, facing down a man with a gun when all you have is your dick in your hand doesn't give you much of an advantage.



If a young thug

 

[2aguy]

Firearms are the great equalizer, Joe.

I'm 65 years old and not getting any younger. I guess I'm ok for someone of my age, but I get more decrepit every day as time marches on.

When I leave my domicile, I would be a sitting duck and an easy mark for the criminal element, except for the fact that I am armed to the teeth.

Some thug comes up to me with a gun, I stand a chance with my little friend. Might I still get killed? Sure- but I definitely stand a chance against some crack head punk.

Banning firearms would confine old people to their homes if they can't afford a body guard.


Sure, when I was young I could rumble a lot better. But even then, facing down a man with a gun when all you have is your dick in your hand doesn't give you much of an advantage.



If a young thug

Joe would love to see you attacked, beaten, and worse.....you are a conservative/libertarian leaning human being and to him, you deserve to be destroyed........

Taking guns away is targeted for people like you....his god "The government" will have guns....those favored by his god, "The government," will have guns...but you won't....

Do you know how hard it is to fill mass graves with people you don't like if they have guns and start shooting back?

 

[Donald H]

Hemenway?

He is a known anti-gun stooge......his research is the shoddiest of all of them....

Also maybe the most thorough and honest too?
Did he lie about something?

 

[Donald H]

----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion,

A third??

So much for that survey!

 

[Donald H]

Yeah...."responsible" is exactly what you call china and russia.....and North Korea...

Yes, even N.K. is responsible on keeping their nuclear weapons as a deterrent threat by the US. And have actually cited Iran's experience of what could happen to a small country without nuclear arms.

However, I'm of the opinion that N.K. doesn't really possess those weapons and have been guaranteed by China that they are covered by China's nuclear deterrent. Likewise with the Zionist regime.

I have no interest in continuing that conversation with you. If I have anything to say to you it will be on guns and your exaggerated claims.

 

[Donald H]

There are many people paying attention. Problem is, where gun crime is rampant, the people in leadership are consumed with agendas that are not focused on crime reduction.



One can't "pay attention" to the problem without noticing the politics that drives the problem.

You assign "political spin" as much if not more than anyone; you assign blame for run-away gun crime in Democrat-run, criminal coddling hellholes, on non-urban, law-abiding conservatives that support gun rights.

That is Hadron Collider level political spin.

.

I spin??
2a just spun a whopper with cheese. A third of gun owners have defended themselves with their guns?? And many more than once!!

And presumably not against lions and tigers and bears, oh my!