How to lower gun crime...very easy step....10-20-life.....boom....drops the mic.

[Bob Blaylock]

If taking guns becomes the law, are you advocating killing law enforcement officers, Bob?

The Second Amendment is the law. To try to take anyone's rightful property by force is robbery, and the victim of any such robbery has every right to use whatever force he must to defend himself against any such crime. You have the mind, the very soul, of a hardcore criminal, and your fantasies are based on turning those charged with upholding law and order into subhuman criminal shit like yourself.

If the criminals/police in your fantasy want to live, then they can keep their filths thieving criminal hands off of stuff that doesn't belong to them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I am always amazed how the "Blue Lives Matters" crowd want to murder officers enforcing laws they don't like.

It's not murder for a law-abiding citizen to kill a subhuman criminal shit in self-defense. It's your fantasies that try to turn officers of the law into subhuman criminal shit.

 

[JoeB131]

Seems to me you would be happier as a subject than as a citizen.

not at all.

The problem is that the rest of us are already subject to:

Militarized police
Security doors
Active Shooter Drills
A prison-industrial complex
Metal detectors at our schools
Security checkpoints in public places

All because the gun industry is feeding the crazy 3% who need to compensate for their 'shortcomings' by owning enough guns to fight the Zombie apocalypse.

I don't feel safer that Joker Holmes and Awake the Rapper, two demonstrably crazy people, can get access to military-grade weapons and use them on people just trying to enjoy their lives.

Guns don't make your home safer, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

They don't protect you from a tyrannical government, because the government has bombers and tanks.

What they do give us is unprecendented levels of crime for an advanced society.

 

[JoeB131]

The Second Amendment is the law. To try to take anyone's rightful property by force is robbery, and the victim of any such robbery has every right to use whatever force he must to defend himself against any such crime. You have the mind, the very soul, of a hardcore criminal, and your fantasies are based on turning those charged with upholding law and order into subhuman criminal shit like yourself.

The Second Amendment is about militias, not gun ownership.

Guns aren't even mentioned. Arms are, but I can't own weaponized anthrax, can I?

Again, Bob, listening to your murder boners, you are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.

 

[1srelluc]

I am always amazed how the "Blue Lives Matters" crowd want to murder officers enforcing laws they don't like.

Registration Deadline Looming for Illinois 'Assault Weapon' Owners

bearingarms.com

So far, gun owners in the Land of Lincoln appear to have been resistant to the demands of the state. According to the Illinois State Police, there’ve been 8,143 gun owners who have complied with the registration mandate to date; fewer than one percent of all Firearm Owner ID card holders in the state. Now, not everyone who possess a FOID card owns one or more of the newly-banned items, but it’s safe to say that compliance has been slow in coming. With the deadline a little more than a week away, the question is now how many gun owners will comply at all.

That deadline has passed and less than 1% complied.....Gun owners are fed-up with the political shit-stain's edicts and are simply saying, "no I don't think I'll be doing that....your move".

The ATF brace ruling was the same, owners just said FU and went about their business till it was enjoined.

 

[JoeB131]

It's not murder for a law-abiding citizen to kill a subhuman criminal shit in self-defense. It's your fantasies that try to turn officers of the law into subhuman criminal shit.

If the majority agrees that most of us shouldn't have guns, and the police enforce that law, how are the police criminals in that situation?

Sounds like the guy insisting on retaining his guns is the criminal, as he's breaking the law.

 

[koshergrl]

ROFL ... how you gonna fund the OP without tax payer dollars? ...

Math is hard for liberals ... apparently impossible for conservatives ... if you want more people in prison, then you will need more prisons ... and here's no fixing the 2nd Amendment ... it's there for a reason ...

Again...shut down the agencies. There's your buildings and your funding.

 

[JoeB131]

Registration Deadline Looming for Illinois 'Assault Weapon' Owners

bearingarms.com

So far, gun owners in the Land of Lincoln appear to have been resistant to the demands of the state. According to the Illinois State Police, there’ve been 8,143 gun owners who have complied with the registration mandate to date; fewer than one percent of all Firearm Owner ID card holders in the state. Now, not everyone who possess a FOID card owns one or more of the newly-banned items, but it’s safe to say that compliance has been slow in coming. With the deadline a little more than a week away, the question is now how many gun owners will comply at all.

That deadline has passed and less than 1% complied.....Gun owners are fed-up with the political shit-stain's edicts and are simply saying, "no I don't think I'll be doing that....your move".

The ATF brace ruling was the same, owners just said FU and went about their business till it was enjoined.

Well, first, it's misleading, because it assumes everyone who has a FOID card has one of the newly banned weapons. Most of them don't. I have a FOID card, I don't own any weapons. (I thought about buying one, but the wife said no.)

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If the majority agrees that most of us shouldn't have guns, and the police enforce that law, how are the police criminals in that situation?

That's a major point of the way our country was set up, and our Constitution written, was to protect certain essential human rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Unless they take the necessary steps to amend the Constitution, it doesn't mean shit if 99% of the people want to take guns away from the remaining 1%. To do so is illegal, and unconstitutional, and anyone who attempts it is a subhuman criminal piece of shit, that fully deserved to be treated as such.

Sounds like the guy insisting on retaining his guns is the criminal, as he's breaking the law.

No, the criminal would be the one who is attempting to rob a citizen of his rightful property. and to violate that citizen's Constitutional rights.

A criminal operating under false color of law is worse than a more common sort of criminal.

Again, you may not have committed any crimes personally, but it is blatantly obvious that you have the mind and the soul of a dangerous, violent, hardcore criminal, are on the side of criminals against the side of human beings, and that your fantasies revolve around a government of criminals, by criminals, for criminals.

It is certainly very obvious why you want law-abiding human beings to be stripped of the ability to defend themselves against your kind. You are an excellent example of why this right needs to be upheld and protected.

 

[1srelluc]

Well, first, it's misleading, because it assumes everyone who has a FOID card has one of the newly banned weapons. Most of them don't. I have a FOID card, I don't own any weapons. (I thought about buying one, but the wife said no.)

How do you know?

It used to be when one of the anti-2A edicts came down gun-owners would bend over backwards to comply....Those days are long over......The attitude now is fuck you, come and take it.

The IL edict is particularly ironic given the weekly carnage in Chicago.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Second Amendment is about militias, not gun ownership.

Right. That's why it speaks of “the right of the people (not any militia)”, and forbids, in the strongest language, any infringement of that right.

 

[ReinyDays]

Again...shut down the agencies. There's your buildings and your funding.

Republicans control the House ... have they sent this to the Senate ...

San Diego trying housing prisoners in office buildings ... the inmates just broke through the walls and escaped ... you know, 1/2 inch drywall is real easy to break ...

In 2004, the USA had ≈ 2 million prisoners, where China only had ≈ 1.5 million ... {Cite} with some more humorous statistics ...

Worse ... you want to take 25% of the nation's school funding ... taking money from little children ...

Republicans control the House ... they should be back from vacation today ...

 

[koshergrl]

Republicans control the House ... have they sent this to the Senate ...

San Diego trying housing prisoners in office buildings ... the inmates just broke through the walls and escaped ... you know, 1/2 inch drywall is real easy to break ...

In 2004, the USA had ≈ 2 million prisoners, where China only had ≈ 1.5 million ... {Cite} with some more humorous statistics ...

Worse ... you want to take 25% of the nation's school funding ... taking money from little children ...

Republicans control the House ... they should be back from vacation today ...

You're using the wrong argument against me. I've been calling to shut down federal funding for schools for decades.

 

[2aguy]

not at all.

The problem is that the rest of us are already subject to:

Militarized police
Security doors
Active Shooter Drills
A prison-industrial complex
Metal detectors at our schools
Security checkpoints in public places

All because the gun industry is feeding the crazy 3% who need to compensate for their 'shortcomings' by owning enough guns to fight the Zombie apocalypse.

I don't feel safer that Joker Holmes and Awake the Rapper, two demonstrably crazy people, can get access to military-grade weapons and use them on people just trying to enjoy their lives.

Guns don't make your home safer, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

They don't protect you from a tyrannical government, because the government has bombers and tanks.

What they do give us is unprecendented levels of crime for an advanced society.

they aren't military grade weapons, and in 2023 we had 12 mass public shootings........75 people killed

Over 350 million Americans

600 million guns in private hands

over 22 million Americans can legally carry guns for self defense......

12 nuts commit acts of mass public shooting.....

12

75 people killed between them....

Bicycles killed 891 (2020)

Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...

Cars killed over 39,000 people in 2019...
You want to take guns away from people who didn't commit any crimes, based on 12 individuals......who passed the very background checks you demanded and said would keep them from getting guns......
And when you use the 43 times number......you are lying every time you use it......

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their “scientific research” proved that defending oneself or one’s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counterproductive, claiming “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.”

This erroneous assertion is what Dr. Edgar Suter, chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), has accurately termed Kellermann’s “43 times fallacy” for gun ownership.7



In a critical and now classic review published in the March 1994 Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Suter not only found evidence of “methodologic and conceptual errors,” such as prejudicially truncated data and non-sequitur logic, but also “overt mendacity,” including the listing of “the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors.” Moreover, the gun-control researchers “deceptively understated” the protective benefits of guns. Suter wrote: “The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1 percent-0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000.”8

Greater Risk to Victims?​

In 1993, in another peer-reviewed NEJM article (the research again heavily funded by the CDC), Kellermann attempted to show that guns in the home are a greater risk to the residents than to the assailants. Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Kellermann used the same flawed methodology and non-sequitur approach. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected counties known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example, 53 percent of the case subjects had a household member who had been arrested, 31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a high incidence of financial instability. In fact, gun ownership, the supposedly high-risk factor for homicide, was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being a murder victim. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, a history of family violence, and living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than having a gun in the home. There is no basis for applying the conclusions to the general population.

Most important, Kellermann and his associates again failed to consider the protective benefits of firearms.

In this 1993 study, they arrived at the “2.7 times fallacy.” In other words, they downsized their fallacy and claimed a family member is 2.7 times more likely to kill another family member than an intruder. Yet, a fallacy is still a fallacy and, as such, it deserves no place in scientific investigations and peer-reviewed medical publications.

Although the 1993 NEJM study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is, as Kates and associates showed, 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who didn’t live in the victims’ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.9

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases. This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped indicate if the study had been compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

These errors invalidated the findings of the 1993 Kellermann study, just as they tainted those of 1986. Nevertheless, the errors have crept into and now permeate the lay press, the electronic media, and particularly, the medical journals, where they remain uncorrected and are repeated time and again as gospel. The media and gun-control groups still cling to the “43 times fallacy” and repeatedly invoke the erroneous mantra that “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.” And, because the publication of the data (and their purported conclusions) supposedly come from “reliable” sources and objective medical researchers, they are given a lot of weight and credibility by practicing physicians, social scientists (who should know better), social workers, law-enforcement officials, and particularly gun-banning politicians.


The Tainted Public-Health Model of Gun Control | Miguel A. Faria Jr.

 

[2aguy]

The Second Amendment is about militias, not gun ownership.

Guns aren't even mentioned. Arms are, but I can't own weaponized anthrax, can I?

Again, Bob, listening to your murder boners, you are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.

Wow....the stupid has always been strong with you....

Guns aren't mentioned by Arms are?

You are just a sick troll......

 

[marvin martian]

Seems to me you would be happier as a subject than as a citizen.

Most leftists would be. They all envision themselves as the elite class of owners in their totalitarian utopias, but in reality, the vast majority of them would be impoverished laborers, state-owned prostitutes, or servants to the tiny elite class. A Handmaid's Tale is actually a very accurate representation of how the left's utopia would look, except the conservative, Christian elites of that novel would be degenerate, drug-addled pedophiles instead.

 

[1srelluc]

they aren't military grade weapons, and in 2023 we had 12 mass public shootings........75 people killed

Over 350 million Americans

600 million guns in private hands

over 22 million Americans can legally carry guns for self defense......

12 nuts commit acts of mass public shooting.....

12

75 people killed between them....

Bicycles killed 891 (2020)

Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...

Cars killed over 39,000 people in 2019...
You want to take guns away from people who didn't commit any crimes, based on 12 individuals......who passed the very background checks you demanded and said would keep them from getting guns......
And when you use the 43 times number......you are lying every time you use it......

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their “scientific research” proved that defending oneself or one’s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counterproductive, claiming “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.”

This erroneous assertion is what Dr. Edgar Suter, chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), has accurately termed Kellermann’s “43 times fallacy” for gun ownership.7



In a critical and now classic review published in the March 1994 Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Suter not only found evidence of “methodologic and conceptual errors,” such as prejudicially truncated data and non-sequitur logic, but also “overt mendacity,” including the listing of “the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors.” Moreover, the gun-control researchers “deceptively understated” the protective benefits of guns. Suter wrote: “The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1 percent-0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000.”8

Greater Risk to Victims?​

In 1993, in another peer-reviewed NEJM article (the research again heavily funded by the CDC), Kellermann attempted to show that guns in the home are a greater risk to the residents than to the assailants. Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Kellermann used the same flawed methodology and non-sequitur approach. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected counties known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example, 53 percent of the case subjects had a household member who had been arrested, 31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a high incidence of financial instability. In fact, gun ownership, the supposedly high-risk factor for homicide, was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being a murder victim. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, a history of family violence, and living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than having a gun in the home. There is no basis for applying the conclusions to the general population.

Most important, Kellermann and his associates again failed to consider the protective benefits of firearms.

In this 1993 study, they arrived at the “2.7 times fallacy.” In other words, they downsized their fallacy and claimed a family member is 2.7 times more likely to kill another family member than an intruder. Yet, a fallacy is still a fallacy and, as such, it deserves no place in scientific investigations and peer-reviewed medical publications.

Although the 1993 NEJM study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is, as Kates and associates showed, 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who didn’t live in the victims’ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.9

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases. This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped indicate if the study had been compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

These errors invalidated the findings of the 1993 Kellermann study, just as they tainted those of 1986. Nevertheless, the errors have crept into and now permeate the lay press, the electronic media, and particularly, the medical journals, where they remain uncorrected and are repeated time and again as gospel. The media and gun-control groups still cling to the “43 times fallacy” and repeatedly invoke the erroneous mantra that “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.” And, because the publication of the data (and their purported conclusions) supposedly come from “reliable” sources and objective medical researchers, they are given a lot of weight and credibility by practicing physicians, social scientists (who should know better), social workers, law-enforcement officials, and particularly gun-banning politicians.


The Tainted Public-Health Model of Gun Control | Miguel A. Faria Jr.

Damn, if you were a bit more pithy folks might pay more attention.

I mean I'm more all in on 2-A rights than most but I try to keep the walls of text down for the average person.

 

[Mac-7]

We lock up 2 million people, we have another 7 million on probation or parole, and we have 70 million Americans with a police record.

We don't have enough prison space to lock people up for merely committing a crime with a gun.

I’m not one of the 70 million with a felony police record

Are you?

like the man said, if you choose to do the crime you should do the time

 

[2aguy]

Most leftists would be. They all envision themselves as the elite class of owners in their totalitarian utopias, but in reality, the vast majority of them would be impoverished laborers, state-owned prostitutes, or servants to the tiny elite class. A Handmaid's Tale is actually a very accurate representation of how the left's utopia would look, except the conservative, Christian elites of that novel would be degenerate, drug-addled pedophiles instead.

Yep...they don't understand that the Handsmaids tale is about the left........not the Right....as is The Hunger Games, 1984, Brave New world.........

They are watching the left destroy women's sports, right in front of their eyes...and they can't see it....

 

[Mac-7]

Yeah, the tough on crime approach has really worked over the U.S over the last 40 years.

Crime is a social problem. It will never be solved. You have Capital Punishment in many states, did murder disappear?

As a foreigner (who btw has no standing on this topic) Shocked seems to think there is a quota system for crime in America

Meaning that Dirtbag A has an assigned and exclusive territory

No one else can do muggings or armed carjackings in that territory except him

If we send him to jail that allows Dirtbag B to quit his job at the carwash take his place as a professional criminal

Maybe thats how it works in Canada but not here