JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,839
- 2,220
Yeah, because if it wasnt reported to the police or the government it does not exist.
/sarc
It's Katie Couric!
- Thread starter Billy_Kinetta
- Start date
/sarc
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,839
- 2,220
That would be persuasive if the gun grabbing Nazis were truly concerned with safety.
But we all know it is not about safety. It is about disarming the public.
They want to turn us into helpless sheep like the UK.
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,839
- 2,220
You dont need stairs if everything is on the ground floor, Sherlock, nor do children have to bathe, they can shower.
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,614
- 2,220
I am not going to search for the thread and the post where that was stated--it was to you, in the past week--and most likely with a link. Since you have already decided that whatever study said that is biased AND lying, why bother? I'm sure it's as accurate as any of the numbers you quote. Statistics can be manipulated both ways, and you know it. You use them everyday.
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,614
- 2,220
No, it is about safety. You are sorely mistaken if you think it's about sending you to a gas chamber.
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
But you can't explain how:
A: I would be safer if I had no means to protect my family of self
B: Why it's any of your goddamn business.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,563
- 52,840
- 2,290
Someone did post about gun ownership being down but the link used the General Social Survey which is run by an anti gunner who wants his research to help politicians pass more fun control....and I linked to other surveys that showed his survey was off...on top of the fact that gun owners are not answering questions about their guns from anonymous people.....
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,563
- 52,840
- 2,290
No...it is not about safety......with 357,000,000 million guns in private hands......up from 320,000,000 guns in private hands in 2013......we had a total of 586 accidental gun deaths..........and of thos 586.... 48 were children.......and if you can't grasp those numbers....which you guys can't..........you would know that Americans are obviously extremely safe with their guns.........
And then you could explain why the anti gun groups fight against gun safety classes in schools....safety training like fire safety training....if it was about saving lives......
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
The link I posted was a GOVERNMENT research organization, not a private individual. I deliberately chose that link because so you couldn't discredit the source.
There have also been Gallup polls and other polls by reputable pollsters and all show that fewer and fewer households have guns but that those who do, have doubled the number of guns they own.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,563
- 52,840
- 2,290
No...they show fewer and fewer gun owners are responding to anonymous polls about owning guns......and I showed you the other polls that show the opposite...we have actual manufacturing numbers, NICS request record processing over the last 8 years, data from actual sport shooting organizations and their sign up lists and they show you have no idea what you are talk No idea what you are talking about.......
320,000,000 million guns in private hands in 2013...and 357,000,000 million guns in private hands in 2016......two guys in Idaho are not buying 37,000,000 million new guns.....
The anti gunners want politicians to believe that there will not be a political cost to more gun control......that is exactly what the head of the General Social Survey said....so they lie.....
And I will tell you....gun owners are not telling complete strangers if they have a gun in their home.....especially not after Samdy Hook when various journalists tried to post the names of gun owners in local papers...to shame them for owning guns......
You have no idea what you are talking about...
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,563
- 52,840
- 2,290
Here you go.....your very own polling service.....
Why Women Are Buying More Guns
Historically there has been a significant gender divide on the issue of gun control. But according to a 2012 Pew Research Center report, there was a 9 point increase in the number of women declaring their support for gun rights between 2008 and 2012. Experts believe there is a connection between more women feeling empowered by gun ownership and shifting their perspective on gun control.
beagle9
Diamond Member
- Nov 28, 2011
- 48,673
- 18,970
- 2,250
A friend of mine is at home for 6 to 8 months healing up now, because a thug ran over him with a stolen car, right after he jumped out of his son's car that he was trying to steal, and back into the one in which was already stolen by him when my friend confronted him. It broke his leg up bad. He was trying to move his son to a large city that weekend. He has a CCP, and he had his weapon locked up in his glove box of his vehicle because of being in an area where guns are not allowed at the time. When the incident took place he couldn't get to his weapon in time, so he confronted the thief without a weapon on him. The thief/thug then ran him over as he approached the thief who had jumped back into the stolen vehicle in which he used to get there in. The thug hasn't been caught, but my friend could have lost his life easily that day. The police said it was unlikely the guy would be caught, and that this goes on alot in the area. So much for my friends great experience of seeing his son go to a big city to stay, and him helping him to move there for his stay. If he would have had his gun on him that day, it may have been a deterrent to the guy leaving the scene until the police arrived or if the guy was intent on using his car as a weapon to kill my friend, the weapon might have allowed my friend to avoid his injuries by killing the thief instead.
Last edited:
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
RE: Restitution NOW you're talking
Billy_Kinetta and JimBowie1958
My bf explained she did not openly apologize but other people did.
He said they skirted over this and did not correct it to the same degree of the damage done.
OK so I said what can we do to demand a public correction?
He said that facebook, etc. are all run by liberal media and will silence any attempt.
I said can't we create such a powerful message of correction that it goes viral.
He doesn't think it will get out to that level. I disagree!
So Gentlemen, Billy_Kinetta JimBowie1958 and others
I propose to form a team to write up a script for leaders on BOTH left and right
concerned about responsible law enforcement and use of arms for defense, not for crime
by mentally ill or criminally abusive people, to produce a media message that can be
circulated to call for corrections and unity on Second Amendment issues.
I have some politically active friends ready to put positive messages out
on Pacifica Public Radio and Public Access broadcasting, and one launched
his own video company and needs paid work.
What if I write up a message for Allen West and Sheila Jackson Lee, two of the
most love/hate figures on left and right, to stand together and call for
Constitutional education, training and responsibility as a requirement for gun ownership,
similar to police and military training, but open this up to all citizens to receive training.
Would THAT send a message that the media could not ignore?
I am willing to invest 1,000 in funding a team to write, edit and produce a bipartisan
message that unites people on all sides of gun debates around SOLUTIONS.
And ask the team what do you want in the message. What is short enough that
can fit in a 30second to 3 minute message we can ask Katie Couric to run ON NATIONAL TV
to correct the problem in addition to apologizing to the group she maligned by manipulation?
The points I would recommend to unite people in agreement before issuing a joint statement:
1. The Second Amendment is NOT to be taken out of context with the rest of the Bill of Rights, that includes the right of people to be secure in persons houses and effects and the right to due process. So the bearing of arms is NOT to be abused to disrupt the right to assemble peacefully and securely in houses, in private and in public, and NOT to be abused to deny DUE PROCESS or to obstruct justice, but is for DEFENSE. Can we agree that the Second Amendment cannot be abused if it is taught within the context of the rest of the Constitution?
2. the "right of the people" to keep and bear arms means "Law-Abiding Citizens"
It is NOT for people with criminal intent or criminal illness who need corrective treatment, therapy and rehab for abusive behavior. For all citizens to have equal access to arms, this means equal access to Constitutional education and training in law enforcement, civil due process and govt. Public civic education will also indirectly solve the problems of police abuses or resisting arrest, by teaching all citizens per district the proper procedures and protocol; so that everyone agrees to comply with the same process, or else the people unable to follow laws will be screened out as needing additional help. By promoting and providing such education, this will help screen out abusive people who are not mentally fit for brandishing weapons and/or not legally competent to serve as police or in govt. Everyone will benefit.
Last edited:
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,839
- 2,220
I think three points need to be hammered home.
1. We all have a right to self-defense. If criminals have access to guns then those who obey the law must have access to them as well to defend themselves. Telling them to await government response is to put them into the tender mercies of criminals and that is unacceptable.
2. We have a constitutional right to own guns, just like Rosa Parks had to ride in any part of the bus she wanted to. We are not afraid or paranoid for demanding the ability to exercise these rights.
3. The armed populace is the final line of defense of our nations freedoms and to have a government of, by and for the People from whom our government derives every iota of its legitimacy. An unarmed population has no more ability to force its sovereign will than the Germans under Hitler, Russians under Stalin or Ugandans under Amin.
Therefore we will NEVER agree to disarm ourselves and will fight to the last adult standing to protect these rights.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,563
- 52,840
- 2,290
Sorry...the 2nd Amendment defines a right......the democrats in the past used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from exercising their Right to vote......any prior restraint, dependent on government required training or education is a no go........and besides...guns are not complicated......the anti gun lefties want people to think that you need a high degree of training to use a gun for self defense...and that just isn't the case.......
I encourage as much training as possible....but I would never let it be used as a way to keep normal, law abiding citizens from owning or carrying guns......and I would not allow it to be used to punish people simply because they did not jump through the right bureaucratic hoops for permission to exercise their right.....
Do you realize that under current laws our gun ownership rate has gone up, and our gun carrying rate by normal citizens has gone up....
4.7 million carried guns for self defense in 2007 and now more than 13,000,000 million people carry guns for self defense.....in 2016...and our gun murder rate went down, not up....
We don't need new laws, we don't need requirements for instruction.......our current system works fine......we need better criminal control...
How about we talk about how to control actual criminals....those who use guns illegally rather than looking for ways to punish law abiding gun owners who don't use their guns for crime.....? How about that?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,563
- 52,840
- 2,290
People alreaady understand those things......the anti gunners pretend that people don't understand those things so they can push for laws against the law abiding.......
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
The film calls itself a "documentary".
Documentaries presents facts, not make "points".
And so, you're wrong.
What you call "a few seconds", honest people call a lie.
What does it say about your "point" if you have to lie to make it?
Irony so thick a continental engineer can't cut it.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Thank you, JimBowie1958
You may have answered one of my questions I had before I present next week at a meeting
on gun laws, rights and violence.
(A) One of the dominant elders in the group is decidedly for disarming,
citing that "more people are killed by their own guns in their homes than by criminals".
1. My bf said that stat is FALSE, and to 'go google' the REAL stats on how many people are killed by gun violence by criminal shooters vs. how many people are killed by accident by their own guns (I already know the arguments about why not ban cars since cars cause more accidents, deaths, injuries and damage than guns, but that argument doesn't EMOTIONALLY convince opponents. It just makes them reach for a different bullet.)
2. Can ANYONE send or post LINKS to STATS on the real comparison of gun shooting deaths by criminals with their own weapons vs. people killed by accident or in crimes gone wrong by their own guns?
(B) JimBowie1958
I REALLY want the SPIRIT of the argument that is similar to "not banning ALL citizens from having guns just because SOME people have accidents"
I like your argument in #1 but it is not the "emotional equivalent and WEIGHT" of the passionate emotional argument that "we want to prevent too many accident deaths that seem disproportionate to the benefits"
To have the SAME WEIGHT, then with or without proving it by citing stats (which doesn't work with emotionally driven arguments) What is the political equivalent of arguing that the right to bear arms is still worth the sacrifice of losing lives to accidents:
1. is it abortion
That even though MOST abortions are NOT to save the lives of women, but 85% of abortions end up harming women emotionally through post abortion syndrome.
It is still more important not to infringe on free choice because govt is intruding too much.
So be consistent. If you are going to argue that ALL guns should be banned,
then why not ban ALL abortions. If you are going to restrict guns to just military and police,
then why not restrict abortions to just medically necessary ones?
Or else it is discrimination, by treating these rights and beliefs differently.
Banning one but refusing to ban another.
Is that the equivalent?
2. I like your equating it to civil rights that people have by nature.
The way I explained it to another liberal Democrat was that changing the law to ban or add restrictions
was "depriving liberty" from someone who used to have freedom to buy guns. So what crime was committed by which people, what due process of law was conducted to determine WHO should lose those rights?
Is it fair to treat ALL people like criminals or like 'irresponsible or unsuccessful gun owners who will set themselves up to be harmed or killed by their own guns because something goes wrong'
Should we punish the majority who are responsible because of the smaller percentage that have accidents or fail at defending themselves from crime where the criminal uses their own gun against them?
If that is the target problem, why is banning guns the only solution?
Is banning abortion the only solution to preventing harm in those situations?
What do you think? What has the equivalent emotional weight
of "banning weapons" as an easy solution, that sounds good so people stop there.
3. Again my bf cited drug laws.
Why insist on restricting and regulating guns, but deregulating and decriminalizing illegal drugs.
What about that argument? Any others?
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear 2aguy
I find too many liberals DON'T understand the spirit, authority, and process behind invoking the law.
No they don't.
That's the problem!
Because they feel disconnected and not in control, that's why they depend on PARTY
to act as their collective voice to PUSH their agenda into GOVT before they feel included.
That's why the LGBT relied on a court ruling to "feel equally recognized"
Until it is established by govt law, ruling or public/political leaders declaring it publicly as in teaching it through the media or passing executive orders, etc.
they don't feel represented.
Something is missing there.
Now, if their self-chosen party reps and political leaders ENDORSE an interpretation as law
that might help "establish it publicly" as part of the "law of the land"
The laws exist on the books, but if people don't connect with them in spirit,
the contract isn't mutually bought into, binding or enforceable for them.
So many people do not believe the Constitutional arguments are really law
but just political or religious agenda pushed by one side and not involving them.
They only go by the letter of the law that is passed, but not the spirit.
So anyone in govt can pass any law through the process and that's law to them.
Constitutional criteria need not apply EXCEPT for THEIR beliefs and whether
they agree with that law; then it needs to change, but only because they don't
agree, not because of Constitutional principles that apply to EVERYONE.
I run into this time and time again, and it is a baffling gap.
It's like trying to explain the Christian laws and concepts
to an atheist who just doesn't feel any of that applies to them or reflects their reality!
Seriously!
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
JimBowie1958
You've given me an idea.
Maybe I should open this up as a contest.
Whoever can convince my friend Jimmy Dunne of the Death Penalty Education Center
to cease this argument that "more people are killed by their own weapons"
should get a prize.
The key is citing different stats that show otherwise may not work as the
EMOTIONAL reason for the argument. If people are arguing based on
personal belief or emotion, then the argument needs to APPEAL to that
in order to convince the person to change their mind.
If he's attached to a false perception, then the argument may need
to be INDEPENDENT of whether it's true or false, such as making
a parallel comparison with an argument he's equally impassioned about.
If he's against the death penalty, then how can that be
used to make a parallel argument? Would that work?
(ie to show he is arguing one way in one case, but
in the other case contradicting that same argument? anyone?)
You've given me an idea.
Maybe I should open this up as a contest.
Whoever can convince my friend Jimmy Dunne of the Death Penalty Education Center
to cease this argument that "more people are killed by their own weapons"
should get a prize.
The key is citing different stats that show otherwise may not work as the
EMOTIONAL reason for the argument. If people are arguing based on
personal belief or emotion, then the argument needs to APPEAL to that
in order to convince the person to change their mind.
If he's attached to a false perception, then the argument may need
to be INDEPENDENT of whether it's true or false, such as making
a parallel comparison with an argument he's equally impassioned about.
If he's against the death penalty, then how can that be
used to make a parallel argument? Would that work?
(ie to show he is arguing one way in one case, but
in the other case contradicting that same argument? anyone?)
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Former Trump Supporter Pamela Hemphill Refuses And Returns Her Jan 6 Pardon- Started by Dr. Phosphorous
- Replies: 0
-
How 'Whataboutism' Is Clearing The Path Of Trumps Avalanche Of Corruption- Started by skews13
- Replies: 4
-
-
Ukraine Destroys 40 Aircraft Deep Inside Russia Ahead Of Peace Talks In Istanbul
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 6
