Kurt Schlichter proposes a reasoned compromise on gun control with the democrats.........

[2aguy]

He got the gun because government isn't allowed to meaningfully restrict or investigate who should have them.

So that's why I say, get the government out of it. Just let the victims of gun violence sue the gunmakers and sellers, and you will be AMAZED how quickly they start vetting their customers.

Kind of like the banks. I compare my loan process in 2021 to the one I went through in 2004, and man, they pretty much did everything short of doing a colonoscopy before they signed off on that loan.


Buying a gun should be like that. A thorough investigation to make sure you aren't the kind of person who is going to muck it up.

No, he got the gun because he’s a criminal…they break the law.

And the car makers too……next time I’m I’m a fender bender I’ll sue Toyota….

 

[2aguy]

We lock up 2 million people.
We have another 7 million on probation or parole.
We have 100 million Americans with a police record.

How many people do you want to lock up, Dick Tiny?

The democrats keep releasing the most violent and dangerous criminals over and over again….how about we just don’t let out the violent killers…..

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What percentage of airline passengers hijack planes and crash them into buildings? Very very few, but we put all the rest through scans and searches and confiscate their bottles of mouthwash to make sure that doesn't happen again.


If prison were a deterrent, then we wouldn't have violent criminals.

Our prisons are overcrowded now, and we don't have the resources or staffing to build more.

Your solution is to turn the whole world into a prison, where nobody is free, and nobody can be trusted.

Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the difference between criminals and human beings, you simply wish to treat everyone as criminals. And in refusing to isolate criminals from human beings, you put human beings in greater danger of predation from criminals.

So when someone who turned to crime because of the poverty, racism, mental illness or drug addiction we let go untreated is put back out there, they end up committing more crimes. Which they can easily do because the NRA has made it so damned easy to get a gun.

BULLSHIT!

Criminals commit crimes because they are subhuman piece of shit, and that's what they do.

Nobody here buys your bullshit excuses that you are always making for subhuman criminal shit, to justify taking their side against the side of human beings.

Be known by the company that you choose to keep.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't have a Constitutional right to fly on a plane.

You are allowed to fly by the airlines that own the plane

That's always your fallback, isn't it?

THE FOUNDING SLAVE RAPISTS SAID I CAN HAVE A GUN BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T CLEARLY DEFINE A MILITIA!

Let's pretend we were writing the constitution today. Do you think we'd have something like the Second Amendment (which again, was about militias, not guns) in it? Of course not. We'd allow sensible gun laws, just like we allowed them before Guido Scalia decided the NRA talking points were sane.

 

[Blues Man]

That's always your fallback, isn't it?

THE FOUNDING SLAVE RAPISTS SAID I CAN HAVE A GUN BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T CLEARLY DEFINE A MILITIA!

Let's pretend we were writing the constitution today. Do you think we'd have something like the Second Amendment (which again, was about militias, not guns) in it? Of course not. We'd allow sensible gun laws, just like we allowed them before Guido Scalia decided the NRA talking points were sane.

It's not a fall back it is a fact.

And why do you ignore the fact that the Constitution was legally changed in accordance to the rules set forth when slavery was abolished?

So all you have to do is amend the the Constitution to get rid of the Second Amendment. And good luck with that.

 

[2aguy]

That's always your fallback, isn't it?

THE FOUNDING SLAVE RAPISTS SAID I CAN HAVE A GUN BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T CLEARLY DEFINE A MILITIA!

Let's pretend we were writing the constitution today. Do you think we'd have something like the Second Amendment (which again, was about militias, not guns) in it? Of course not. We'd allow sensible gun laws, just like we allowed them before Guido Scalia decided the NRA talking points were sane.

You vote for the political party actually created by slave rapists…..the democrat party

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And I've told you, and you keep pretending you didn't see it.

LOL no you havent. Liar.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What percentage of airline passengers hijack planes and crash them into buildings? Very very few, but we put all the rest through scans and searches and confiscate their bottles of mouthwash to make sure that doesn't happen again.



If prison were a deterrent, then we wouldn't have violent criminals.

Our prisons are overcrowded now, and we don't have the resources or staffing to build more.


So when someone who turned to crime because of the poverty, racism, mental illness or drug addiction we let go untreated is put back out there, they end up committing more crimes. Which they can easily do because the NRA has made it so damned easy to get a gun.


Now, imagine if we made it EASY to get mental health treatment and HARD to get a gun, instead of the other way around.

You keep repeating the same old worn out debunked fascist scared of gun talking points , why? You sound like a 12 years old trying to get his way

 

[JoeB131]

The democrats keep releasing the most violent and dangerous criminals over and over again….how about we just don’t let out the violent killers…..

Okay... except how do you expect them to behave themselves in prison if they don't even have the possibility of parole? 32% of people released for a violent crime reoffend. But 68% of them don't.

The thing is, we only have 20,000 homicides a year. The murderers - most of whom get life sentences, aren't really the problem. It's the non-murderers who fall into a rut of more crime.

Your solution is to turn the whole world into a prison, where nobody is free, and nobody can be trusted.

Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the difference between criminals and human beings, you simply wish to treat everyone as criminals. And in refusing to isolate criminals form human beings, you put human beings in greater danger of predation from criminals.

Since we are talking specifically about mass shooters here... most mass shooters have no criminal records before they go off the edge. Some of them are people who just snapped. And reading your posts, you strike me as the kind of guy who could just snap some day.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's always your fallback, isn't it?

THE FOUNDING SLAVE RAPISTS SAID I CAN HAVE A GUN BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T CLEARLY DEFINE A MILITIA!

Let's pretend we were writing the constitution today. Do you think we'd have something like the Second Amendment (which again, was about militias, not guns) in it? Of course not. We'd allow sensible gun laws, just like we allowed them before Guido Scalia decided the NRA talking points were sane.

No one but God gave me the right to defend myself. The founders only ensured that right was protected written in the law of the land.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Okay... except how do you expect them to behave themselves in prison if they don't even have the possibility of parole? 32% of people released for a violent crime reoffend. But 68% of them don't.

The thing is, we only have 20,000 homicides a year. The murderers - most of whom get life sentences, aren't really the problem. It's the non-murderers who fall into a rut of more crime.



Since we are talking specifically about mass shooters here... most mass shooters have no criminal records before they go off the edge. Some of them are people who just snapped. And reading your posts, you strike me as the kind of guy who could just snap some day.

Execute them or don't release them

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And reading your posts, you strike me as the kind of guy who could just snap some day.

I doubt if anyone else her thinks you're likely to be any good judge of who is likely to snap, and who is not.

Certainly, you clearly demonstrate the lack of ethics, and the lack of a soul, and a general hatred for all humankind, that would make you a good candidate for such snappage. I think the only things holding you back from such behavior are that you're too cowardly, too weak, and too stupid to do anything.

I can say this much: If I ever were to snap, and become a violent criminal, I know that then, you would be solidly on my side.

You hate me, above all else, because I am not a criminal, but an actual human being who would rather not be easy prey for your kind.

 

[JoeB131]

No one but God gave me the right to defend myself. The founders only ensured that right was protected written in the law of the land.

There is no God.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

Execute them or don't release them

We don't have enough room in the prisons and executing people is right out when you can't tell me you are killing the right guy. We've released 164 people from death row after they were exonerated, and maybe as many as 14 were wrongfully executed.

I doubt if anyone else her thinks you're likely to be any good judge of who is likely to snap, and who is not.

Certainly, you clearly demonstrate the lack of ethics, and the lack of a soul, and a general hatred for all humankind, that would make you a good candidate for such snappage. I think the only things holding you back from such behavior are that you're too cowardly, too weak, and too stupid to do anything.

Uh, guy, you're the one who wants to murder

Women who have abortions
Bureaucrats who pass laws you don't like
Petty criminals over property crimes
Teachers who don't agree with your extreme homophobia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is no God.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.



We don't have enough room in the prisons and executing people is right out when you can't tell me you are killing the right guy. We've released 164 people from death row after they were exonerated, and maybe as many as 14 were wrongfully executed.



Uh, guy, you're the one who wants to murder

Women who have abortions
Bureaucrats who pass laws you don't like
Petty criminals over property crimes
Teachers who don't agree with your extreme homophobia.

Your opinion is not proof
Execute them
Murder is not the same as killing.
Bureaucrats don't make laws and are not legal.
And you can go fuck yourself with your other bullshit. I hope one day you'll come face to face with a criminal intent on doing you harm and when you take your last breathe after they finish say as loud as you can I WAS WRONG.

 

[Blues Man]

There is no God.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.



We don't have enough room in the prisons and executing people is right out when you can't tell me you are killing the right guy. We've released 164 people from death row after they were exonerated, and maybe as many as 14 were wrongfully executed.



Uh, guy, you're the one who wants to murder

Women who have abortions
Bureaucrats who pass laws you don't like
Petty criminals over property crimes
Teachers who don't agree with your extreme homophobia.

DEBUNKED BULLSHIT is still DEBUNKED BULLSHIT no matter how many times you repeat it

 

[2aguy]

Okay... except how do you expect them to behave themselves in prison if they don't even have the possibility of parole? 32% of people released for a violent crime reoffend. But 68% of them don't.

The thing is, we only have 20,000 homicides a year. The murderers - most of whom get life sentences, aren't really the problem. It's the non-murderers who fall into a rut of more crime.



Since we are talking specifically about mass shooters here... most mass shooters have no criminal records before they go off the edge. Some of them are people who just snapped. And reading your posts, you strike me as the kind of guy who could just snap some day.

No....it is the felons caught with illegal guns who are released despite being felons in possession of illegal guns that go on to eventually murder people......

Mass public shooters in 2021

6.....out of a population of over 330 million people.....

Total killed....

43..... out of a population of over 330 million people...

Out of over 10,000 gun murders....

So you want to focus on mass public shooters because they are the one gun crime that is covered 24/7 by the democrat party media, and who actually make normal Americans afraid, even though the odds of being involved in a mass public shootings are essentially 0.

But, because of the 24/7, Oscars of crime coverage of mass public shootings, you can drag dead bodies in front of the cameras and scare uninformed Americans into giving you power....

Meanwhile, in democrat party controlled cities, young black males are murdering each other in the thousands every single year......but you don't care about them because they already vote for your slave rapist party at over 95%............

 

[2aguy]

There is no God.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.



We don't have enough room in the prisons and executing people is right out when you can't tell me you are killing the right guy. We've released 164 people from death row after they were exonerated, and maybe as many as 14 were wrongfully executed.



Uh, guy, you're the one who wants to murder

Women who have abortions
Bureaucrats who pass laws you don't like
Petty criminals over property crimes
Teachers who don't agree with your extreme homophobia.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

Again...that is a lie......and it was repealed by the very guy who did the research.....

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

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

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25 The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors. A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range. After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership. Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon.Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "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 - 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."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being 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, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[2aguy]

There is no God.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.



We don't have enough room in the prisons and executing people is right out when you can't tell me you are killing the right guy. We've released 164 people from death row after they were exonerated, and maybe as many as 14 were wrongfully executed.



Uh, guy, you're the one who wants to murder

Women who have abortions
Bureaucrats who pass laws you don't like
Petty criminals over property crimes
Teachers who don't agree with your extreme homophobia.

And more.....

http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/1

Is Having a Gun in the Home Inherently Deadly?

The idea that keeping a gun in the home puts owners and their families at elevated risk first rose to prominence in a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues. "Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection," they concluded, "this study shows that the practice is counterproductive."

The study has many flaws. In addition to the predictable failure to establish causality, there's a more glaring irregularity: Slightly less than half of the murders Kellermann studied were actually committed with a gun (substantially less than the national average in 1993 of around 71 percent).


And even in those cases he failed to establish that the gun owners were killed with their own guns.


If even a small percentage of them weren't, given that more than half of the murders were notcommitted with guns, the causal relevance of the harmed being gun owners is far less clear. (The study found that even more dangerous risks than having a gun at home included living alone, using drugs, or being a renter.)

A 2013 literature review in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, written by the University of Utrecht psychologist Wolfgang Stroebe, starts with Kellermann but rejects the idea that firearm possession is "a primary cause of either suicide or homicide." However, he writes, "since guns are more effective means for [actually killing someone] than poison or other weapons, the rate of firearm possession can be expected to be positively related to overall rates of suicide and homicide." But even then we can't be sure of causality, since guns might be the choice of people with more serious lethal intent, against themselves or others, to begin with.

Stroebe notes that the two major post-Kellermann studies most often used to demonstrate an association between gun ownership and risk of homicide shared one of Kellermann's fatal flaws:

They offer no information about whether the gun used to kill the gun owners was their own.

And despite Kellermann's finding that living alone was very risky, one of the follow-ups, a 2004 study by Linda Dahlberg and colleagues, found that it was only those with roommates who faced a higher risk of a specifically gun-related homicide.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Uh, guy, you're the one who wants to murder

Women who have abortions

It is bizarre that you think there is any moral high ground for you to claim by defending the brutal cold-blooded murder of innocent children, and opposing any effort to bring anyone to proper justice for these murders.

Bureaucrats who pass groundlaws you don't like
Petty criminals over property crimes

Those are lies, and you know damn well that they are lies.

It is rather telling, of course, the way you staunchly and consistently alway take the side of criminals and corrupt politicians against the side of human beings.

Teachers who don't agree with your extreme homophobia.

Everyone here knows that what you mean here are perverts who engage in the abusive sexual grooming and exploitation of young children.

Damn right I want them dead. Any decent person would.

It is not the least bit surprising that you take the side of those who sexually abuse children. It's completely consistent with the rest of your demonstrated [lack of] character.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Any bullet fired at the police is a bullet that isn't hitting an innocent victim......if he has to concentrate on the door to keep the police from entering, he isn't pulling the trigger on innocent victims..

Also....and mosts important...

These killers tend to do one of 3 things when actually confronted by someone, police or civilian, armed with a gun...

They commit suicide

They surrender

They run away....

That only happens if they have someone shooting at them...the Sandy Hook killer killed himself as soon as he heard the police sirens...

The Colorado theater shooter surrendered as soon as a cop called him out.

The Texas church shooter stopped shooting and murdering the wounded when the NRA instructor approached the church and called him out...

The Parkland shooter ran away as soon as the police finally decided to enter the building...

Putting pressure on the killer is the one way to save lives...

By the time he engaged the cops, every victim had already been shot.