Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Ernie S.]

Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.

I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer. and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....

Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat' Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.

dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...

How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?

It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.

Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.

Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.

 

[2aguy]

How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?

Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate. In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.

You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.

Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism. I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.

Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.

Ad hom.........
I copied your arrogant crap for comedic value once I had invalidated your entire argument.
Yet you insult my intelligence when I explain that your only proposed solution is, was and will be infective.
Arrogance is about all you got.

Don't worry Rye, I feel pretty damned good, but go ahead. Puff out your chest and claim victory. Everyone but you sees through that shit.

Seems as if you have puffed out your chest and claimed victory. I posited an idea, not a solution, one which might mitigate the apparent ease for criminals to get guns. You're cock sure of yourself but have not ideas on how to mitigate gun violence, other than, I suppose, keeping all criminals in jail and those with mental issues locked in institutions.

BTW, the cost of incarcertion is likely 10.000 times the cost of a gun license since the mechanism (a driver's license or state issued ID card) is already in place at the DMV.

Licensing people doesn't do anything.....not one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters......to think it does points to your lack of intelligence.

You can't explain how licensing does anything you claim it does........

Incarceration was about 26,000 dollars a year...well worth the price considering how expensive having them on the street is....

 

[kaz]

"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

Here's a list of school shootings:

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999

See, that's the problem with debating you libs. When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else. I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings? WTF is that about? What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate? Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?

Of course not. In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments. It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point. I did the same.

Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.

I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack. The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost. Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.

Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance. Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain. Word got out and the epidemic waned.

The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.

Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally. Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?

Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say? People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.

I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was. My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my ATM machine.

Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not. That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.

Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were. We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US. In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.

My kids grew up in Brookfield, Connecticut, 10 minutes from Sandy Hook. We lived there six years, longer than they lived anywhere else. There is no place in this country you'd have felt safter than in an elementary school in Sandy Hook. I am a Virginia Tech alum. I owned a restaurant in Chapel Hill near where Eve Carson was murdered. I also worked across the street from the World Trade center. A kid who was deranged held up the Wachovia branch a half mile from my house that I banked at with his finger and the cops ended up blowing him away. None of those places seemed dangerous at all. Particularly as you say during the day. I don't carry a gun even though I have a collection, but it makes me think I should consider it. Violence is around us and you just don't know. The best defense is criminals not knowing who is armed

Got a cousin in Brookfield. I grew up in New Fairfield just across the lake.

I carry most of the time out of the house, but I deal with drunks frequently. Sometimes it's hard to run them out at 2 AM. Generally all it takes is tucking in my shirt and telling them that the party is over.

Wow, that's cool, yes, New Fairfield is right there. We looked at houses in both New Fairfield and Newtown and settled on Brookfield. My kids were too old at the time of the shooting to be there, but they could have gone to that school

 

[Ernie S.]

A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.

What about just running you through the shredder once for all the innocent cows you have someone else kill for you?

Had a Gun Nut like you awhile back gettin all boned up as he excitedly boasted to me about blowing a deer's spine apart. I had to control myself. I really wanted to slap the sick bastard.

Hunting just for fun is a brutal cowardly act. The animal is innocent and defenseless. So take off the camo and find another hobby.

The animal will die. More likely a cruel death from starvation or predators. It will feed scavengers and maggots.
It's just cold hard facts. I choose to control the death and use it to my advantage.
You don't. You rely on others to kill your meat. Does that make you superior?

 

[kaz]

Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.

I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer. and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....

Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat' Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.

dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...

How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?

It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.

Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.

Once again you'll run away and hide, but once again, explain the moral superiority of someone killing a cow for you and what defense the cow has

 

[kaz]

A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.

What about just running you through the shredder once for all the innocent cows you have someone else kill for you?

Had a Gun Nut like you awhile back gettin all boned up as he excitedly boasted to me about blowing a deer's spine apart. I had to control myself. I really wanted to slap the sick bastard.

Hunting just for fun is a brutal cowardly act. The animal is innocent and defenseless. So take off the camo and find another hobby.

A flaming ****** like you tramps through Greenwich village mostly naked is a perverted act. Take off the dress and wear normal clothing so you stop embarrassing normal gays like that

 

[kaz]

Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat' Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.

Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...

Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.

God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.

Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite

Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done. When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.

How pitiful is that.

Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.

Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name

 

[2aguy]

you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

LIAR! But let's play this game.

How do we keep drunks out of cars?

How do we keep molesters from molesting?

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?

How do we keep minors from using drugs?

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?

Think about it, if you can. Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.

You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......

In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......

Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....

What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.

You're an ignoramus. I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.

In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD. Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.

I doubt your abject ignorance is willful. I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.

While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?

If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can reduce gun violence, it will cut the cost to local government. When a gun is used, even by a law abiding citizen such as you, and a person is wounded or killed there is a cost in terms of first response personnel, hospitals, investigators, the prosecutors office and potentially the local jail, the courts, the public defender and probation; a cost paid by the taxpayer.

Dipshit....please.....I ask again, how does forcing law abiding, non criminals to get a license for their gun reduce gun violence, since the law abiding who can actually own guns in the first place, and who do not commit crime with guns, are not the ones murdering people?

How does a license stop someone from using a gun to commit gun crime, especially if they are already a criminal and already banned from using a gun in the first place....considering most of all shootings are done by these very criminals, and not normal people who all of a sudden decide to shoot someone.

your devotion to Licensing guns owners has as much chance at doing what you claim as simply spreading pixie dust on the guns.......

You still have not explained the mechanism by which licensing gun owners keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.

 

[Ernie S.]

See, that's the problem with debating you libs. When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else. I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings? WTF is that about? What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate? Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?

Of course not. In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments. It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point. I did the same.

Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.

I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack. The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost. Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.

Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance. Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain. Word got out and the epidemic waned.

The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.

Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally. Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?

Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say? People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.

I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was. My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my ATM machine.

Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not. That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.

Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were. We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US. In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.

My kids grew up in Brookfield, Connecticut, 10 minutes from Sandy Hook. We lived there six years, longer than they lived anywhere else. There is no place in this country you'd have felt safter than in an elementary school in Sandy Hook. I am a Virginia Tech alum. I owned a restaurant in Chapel Hill near where Eve Carson was murdered. I also worked across the street from the World Trade center. A kid who was deranged held up the Wachovia branch a half mile from my house that I banked at with his finger and the cops ended up blowing him away. None of those places seemed dangerous at all. Particularly as you say during the day. I don't carry a gun even though I have a collection, but it makes me think I should consider it. Violence is around us and you just don't know. The best defense is criminals not knowing who is armed

Got a cousin in Brookfield. I grew up in New Fairfield just across the lake.

I carry most of the time out of the house, but I deal with drunks frequently. Sometimes it's hard to run them out at 2 AM. Generally all it takes is tucking in my shirt and telling them that the party is over.

Wow, that's cool, yes, New Fairfield is right there. We looked at houses in both New Fairfield and Newtown and settled on Brookfield. My kids were too old at the time of the shooting to be there, but they could have gone to that school

I used to hunt where that school is in Newtown Some former "associates" died in a shoot out about 1/4 mile away.
You may not be aware, but before Candlewood Lake was created in the 30's, New Fairfield extended almost to US 7 on the east side of the lake. It remained part of New Fairfield until the 50's.
The 45 minute run for the fire department and road crews made it logical to turn the area known as Candlewood Shores over to Brookfield.

 

[2aguy]

You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......

In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......

Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....

What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.

You're an ignoramus. I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.

In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD. Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.

I doubt your abject ignorance is willful. I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.

While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?

If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .

That's the point. There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything. One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good. It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.

Bullshit. It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.

Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....

 

[2aguy]

That's the point. There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything. One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good. It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.

Bullshit. It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.

Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:

Posted March 13, 2003
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics" I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.

Total number of accidental gun deaths for children in 2013.....69.

Total number of gun murders of children in 2013....138....

In a country of over 320 million...

Leading cause of death for children in the U.S......cars.

 

[2aguy]

That's the point. There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything. One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good. It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.

Bullshit. It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.

Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:

Posted March 13, 2003
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

Here's a list of school shootings:

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999

Sorry, they admitted they got that wrong...they ginned up the numbers with shootings and other things that aren't mass shootings....nice try though......

Of course, guys like you have to lie...the truth, and reality show you are wrong about just about everything, especially guns....

 

[2aguy]

That's the point. There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything. One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good. It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.

Bullshit. It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.

Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:

Posted March 13, 2003
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics" I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Here are the stats on some common types of death....it would be better to start a crusade to teach people how to walk upright...and save them from falling deaths...you would save more lives.....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

guns, drowning and poisoning....

If you cared about people....you would push to ban the following...


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

Accidental gun deaths 2013......505

Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39
Total: 69 ( in a country of 320 million people)


2012...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf

Then by year accidental gun deaths going down according to CDC final statistics table 10 from 2010-2013...

2010...606
2011...591
2012...548
2013...505
So...accidental gun deaths have been coming down as more people own and carry guns for self defense....now 12.8 million people actually carry guns for self defense......on their person, and the accidental gun death rate is going down, not up....

 

[2aguy]

That's the point. There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything. One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good. It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.

Bullshit. It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.

Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:

Posted March 13, 2003
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

Here's a list of school shootings:

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999

Here you go...before I go and find the coverage of the FBI mass shooting thing being wrong, here is ultra left wing whack job Mother Jones and their stats on mass shootings in the U.S.......look at how many people have been killed in mass shootings...according to this anti gun, left wing, nut job site...

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Sooooo....


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation



How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 100.

2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19


Those are the numbers of deaths from mass shootings in the United States.....and even in the big year, 2012, they didn't break 100 deaths by criminals.

How many guns are there in American hands....320 million.

How many people carry guns for self defense...over 12.8 million.

 

[2aguy]

That's the point. There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything. One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good. It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.

Bullshit. It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.

Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:

Posted March 13, 2003
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

Here's a list of school shootings:

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999

Wow...5 seconds to find it.....

The FBI's bogus report on mass shootings

It’s disheartening to see the FBI used to promote a political agenda, but that’s what we got with the bureau’s release last month of a study claiming to show a sharp rise in mass shootings, a la Newtown, Conn.

The FBI counted 160 “mass” or “active” shootings in public places from 2000 to 2013. Worse, it said these attacks rose from just one in 2000 to 17 in 2013. Media outlets worldwide gave the “news” extensive coverage.

Too bad the study is remarkably shoddy — slicing the evidence to distort the results. In fact, mass public shootings have only risen ever so slightly over the last four decades.

While the FBI study discusses “mass shootings or killings,” its graphs were filled with cases that had nothing to do with mass killings.

Of the 160 cases it counted, 32 involved a gun being fired without anyone being killed. Another 35 cases involved a single murder.

 

[2aguy]

That's the point. There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything. One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good. It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.

Bullshit. It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.

Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:

Posted March 13, 2003
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

Here's a list of school shootings:

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999

Oh...and here is another article on how the FBI has been infected by anti gun extremists who will lie to push their agenda.........and dupes like you will believe it....and perpetuate the lie....

Sadly, you will have to subscribe to the WSJ...so I'll find another source...

Obama’s Gun-Control Misfire

 

[kaz]

Of course not. In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments. It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point. I did the same.

Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.

I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack. The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost. Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.

Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance. Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain. Word got out and the epidemic waned.

The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.

Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally. Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?

Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say? People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.

I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was. My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my ATM machine.

Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not. That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.

Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were. We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US. In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.

My kids grew up in Brookfield, Connecticut, 10 minutes from Sandy Hook. We lived there six years, longer than they lived anywhere else. There is no place in this country you'd have felt safter than in an elementary school in Sandy Hook. I am a Virginia Tech alum. I owned a restaurant in Chapel Hill near where Eve Carson was murdered. I also worked across the street from the World Trade center. A kid who was deranged held up the Wachovia branch a half mile from my house that I banked at with his finger and the cops ended up blowing him away. None of those places seemed dangerous at all. Particularly as you say during the day. I don't carry a gun even though I have a collection, but it makes me think I should consider it. Violence is around us and you just don't know. The best defense is criminals not knowing who is armed

Got a cousin in Brookfield. I grew up in New Fairfield just across the lake.

I carry most of the time out of the house, but I deal with drunks frequently. Sometimes it's hard to run them out at 2 AM. Generally all it takes is tucking in my shirt and telling them that the party is over.

Wow, that's cool, yes, New Fairfield is right there. We looked at houses in both New Fairfield and Newtown and settled on Brookfield. My kids were too old at the time of the shooting to be there, but they could have gone to that school

I used to hunt where that school is in Newtown Some former "associates" died in a shoot out about 1/4 mile away.
You may not be aware, but before Candlewood Lake was created in the 30's, New Fairfield extended almost to US 7 on the east side of the lake. It remained part of New Fairfield until the 50's.
The 45 minute run for the fire department and road crews made it logical to turn the area known as Candlewood Shores over to Brookfield.

That's interesting, and no, I did not know that. My oldest daughter's best friend lived in Brookfield right on Candlewood Lake. The house we wanted the most was in New Fairfield. It was on a hillside and had a spectacular view from three floors looking across the border into New York. A builder built the house and lived in it himself. Ironically he never finished it, we figured it would take at least $75-100K to finish it. But he was pricing it as if it was perfect and complete. We wanted some reduction for the work we had to do and he refused, so we passed. We ended up buying at the top of the hill overlooking Brookfield, we got a great view in a completed house. We lived on Pocono Ridge Road if you're familiar with that street

 

[2aguy]

That's the point. There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything. One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good. It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.

Bullshit. It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.

Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:

Posted March 13, 2003
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

Here's a list of school shootings:

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999

Here you go...from Time......on how the FBI lied in their report...

http://time.com/3432950/fbi-mass-shooting-report-misleading/

One of the problems, they say, lies with the definition of “active shooter” and “mass shooter.” The FBI report analyzed “active shooter” incidents generally, a term defined by the federal government as an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill others in a confined and populated area. (The FBI report modified that definition a bit to include multiple individuals as well as events in locations not considered “confined.”)

The problem in conflating the two terms, Fox argues, is that an active shooter doesn’t necessarily have to kill anyone. And in fact, only 64 incidents involving “active shooters” met the federal government’s definition of a “mass killing,” in which three or more people were murdered in a single incident. In 31 incidents identified by the FBI report, no one was killed.

“A majority of active shooters are not mass shooters,” Fox says. “A majority kill fewer than three.”

If active shooters are removed from the equation, Fox says, mass shootings in fact have not been rising over the last few decades, and both the number of incidents and the number of victims has remained relatively steady since the 1970s.

Fox and Duwe are also critical of the report’s methodology. To collect many of the incidents, the FBI’s researchers often combed through news reports. But the term “active shooter” has only been in use within the last few years, Fox says, which may have skewed the numbers in favor of more recent events, possibly making it look as if shootings are rising.

 

[paulitician]

I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer. and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....

Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat' Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.

dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...

How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?

It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.

Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.

Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.

It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.

Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.

 

[paulitician]

A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.

What about just running you through the shredder once for all the innocent cows you have someone else kill for you?

Had a Gun Nut like you awhile back gettin all boned up as he excitedly boasted to me about blowing a deer's spine apart. I had to control myself. I really wanted to slap the sick bastard.

Hunting just for fun is a brutal cowardly act. The animal is innocent and defenseless. So take off the camo and find another hobby.

The animal will die. More likely a cruel death from starvation or predators. It will feed scavengers and maggots.
It's just cold hard facts. I choose to control the death and use it to my advantage.
You don't. You rely on others to kill your meat. Does that make you superior?

Yup, a real Saint.