St. Louis couple defends their house from protestors, with guns. Do you support "stand your ground laws"?

[freyasman]

No,

Well tell the DA that then.

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally

law.lis.virginia.gov

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They are not authorized to use deadly force against outdoor trespass, therefore there is no authorization to brandish a weapon they are prohibited from using.

It's not my problem.

What is not your problem? You said "It wasn't a crime" - now you see it is a crime.

No, I see that YOU believe it's a crime, and that's your problem, not mine.
I wouldn't care if they shot all of them; they ain't my people.

It is all over the world everywhere a crime to threaten someone with a weapon. Maybe except in regions of the world, where criminals take care no one is able to make laws against such a crime.

laws vary with the states in the USA------The woman with the gun was protecting her house from trespassers who in her view seemed threatening. In some states that is
legal

Maybe legal - I don't know - but in a criminal contradiction to the value "freedom of opinion". No one has any right to threaten demonstrants with a weapon. And I do not see any case of self defense in the absurde and criminal behavior of this two people. And how they hold their weapons is per se criminal and a reason not to allow them any longer to own any weapon.

You're entitled to your "opinion".

I translate this as an: Your opinion not counts.

But here in the US the Laws decide issues.
1. The McClosky's have every right to hold guns and to let the protesters know that their property will be defended, legally as allowed by law.
2. The "demonstrators" were trespassing on private property, that is criminal behavior
3. The McClosky's are NOT criminal in any way, they are well within the law, especially the "2nd Amendment", "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" which you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend.

I do not think it makes a big sense to discuss about formal systems like a system of laws and to lose out of sight the same times the values of modern democracies. And human beings need justice - independent whether real justice exists or not exists in this world here. But for sure every man made system of justice has problems and has sometimes even not a lot to do with justice. Formal systems are somehow like ideologies - in best case they look for truth within the own structures. But even in such a case it is possible laws are far from reality. So laws need always to be renewed.

It's for me totally clear that no one has any right to threaten anyone with a weapon. Or to demonstrate with a weapon anything. And specially no one has any right to try to bring anyone with weapons - or with other forms of threats - into a situation that someone will not be able to say in public freely the own opinion - for example by demonstrating together with others, who share this opinion.

And let me say: Nearly no one's home is a "castle". If it would be a castle, then it would be open for anyone who needs to be protected. And if a mob for example would try to play Mr. Lynch then it could indeed be someone defends the holiness and peace of the own home with weapons.

This law here (§ 18.2-282.A) is by the way very clear and in harmony with important substantial values. I repeat it:

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They were on their own private ground - but they threatened a public demonstration. That's the same as if they had used this weapons on public ground. While they did do so they showed the same time that they are totally unqualified to own a license for a weapon.

One of this weapons should be by the way never be in private hands for private use - it is a subject of a war weapon control law.

Okay, that's what you think.
Roger, got it, we understand.






You're wrong.







Are we done here now?

 

[Issa]

I'm anti gun, anti trump, anti racist cons which those couple are probably but I don't blame them for defending their property from trespassers.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.

You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.

A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,

Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.

What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.

They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.

As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

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

www.hsph.harvard.edu

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=blr

Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed

The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...

fee.org

• Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.

www.forbes.com

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Almost all of the national surveys are coming from the NRA, with an agenda to keep handguns legal and readily available. There is little to no funding available for unbiased studies, and even less which highlight the dangers of gun ownership, because the agenda is to keep gun ownership legal and unregulated.

Since the CDC were barred by Congress by doing research on gun issues, there has been little unbiased research on the topic. The Republican Congress stopped funding research the results always came out badly for the "gun rights" crowd. Every study the CDC did, essentially came back with the same results: gun regulation saves lives.

There are few unbiased studies being done in the USA, and even fewer that show gun ownership in a negative light, despite the gut wrenching numbers of deaths, injuries, and mass killings ever year. There is no need to prove unrestricted handgun ownership is a detriment to public health. The numbers alone on the deaths, injuries, suicides, and mass shootings, make it obvious, when compared to other first world nations where handgun ownership is strictly regulated.

All of the statistics from the Foundation for Economic Freedom are refuted by the Harvard Study, and here's the reason why. The FEF study set out to demonstrate how many times guns are used to prevent crime. The survey was biased to find as many positive gun uses as possible, because that's they're looking for: studies to support the libertarian view.

The Harvard study wasn't looking for a result. If anything, it was set up to show how effective law abiding gun owners are in the use of their weapons. They didn't even hear from the "other guy" as to what went down, nor did they cross examine the gun owners or question their statements. The accepted what the gun owner told them was true, and never questioned their reasons. They also used retired criminal judges to assess the stories. Criminal judges are hardly flaming liberals. If anything, listening to criminals try to justify their crimes all day would make anyone hardcore conservative.

Added to which, the Harvard study results were truly surprising. It was expected that some of the gun owners acted inappropriately when drawing weapons, but not virtually ALL of them.

Last but not least, Harvard is hardly a "liberal" institution. 8 US Presidents attended Harvard from the past. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all attended Harvard. It's an even split between Democrats and Republicans.

And you lied about the CDC being banned from doing research.......do you just sit there with your jaw slack, drooling.....as the left wing implants their fake information into your skull...

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.





No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

And your used a FAKE NEWS site. Why are we not surprised:

Liberty News – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

That being said, the REAL story is not as was portrayed in the fake news site you linked to, so we'll go with this one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

The study doesn't say ANY of the things your article claims, it just reviews 5 other studies and says more studies are needed. I bolded the parts you left out.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership. The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

Gee, that's not what your fake news article said. And while the idea that the CDC cannot do a study which promotes gun control is not quite the same thing as an outright ban on research, all gun violence studies do that in one way or another. The CDC doesn't want to do this research because it's so political.

The bald fact is there is a national emergency of gun violence in the USA. But like every other American problem, you refuse to even discuss the problem, much less deal with it.

Bullshit.
If you're not in the drug/gang lifestyle and you don't fuck people you shouldn't, you are just not very likely to be murdered here, plain and simple.
Take your nonsense somewhere else.

Such a well reasoned answer, with quotes, and links. NOT.

What you're really saying is that if you're not a criminal, you don't need a gun. Which is the position of the gun control advocates.

Exactly. That is your position. Thank you for not LYING YOUR FUCKING ASS OFF like other gun-grabbing commies. The objective is ban and confiscation.

THE GOAL IS BAN AND CONFISCATION!!!

THE GOAL IS BAN AND CONFISCATION!!!

Over your dead bodies!!!!!

 

[zaangalewa]

According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.

You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.

A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,

Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.

What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.

They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.

As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

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

www.hsph.harvard.edu

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=blr

Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed

The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...

fee.org

• Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.

www.forbes.com

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Almost all of the national surveys are coming from the NRA, with an agenda to keep handguns legal and readily available. There is little to no funding available for unbiased studies, and even less which highlight the dangers of gun ownership, because the agenda is to keep gun ownership legal and unregulated.

Since the CDC were barred by Congress by doing research on gun issues, there has been little unbiased research on the topic. The Republican Congress stopped funding research the results always came out badly for the "gun rights" crowd. Every study the CDC did, essentially came back with the same results: gun regulation saves lives.

There are few unbiased studies being done in the USA, and even fewer that show gun ownership in a negative light, despite the gut wrenching numbers of deaths, injuries, and mass killings ever year. There is no need to prove unrestricted handgun ownership is a detriment to public health. The numbers alone on the deaths, injuries, suicides, and mass shootings, make it obvious, when compared to other first world nations where handgun ownership is strictly regulated.

All of the statistics from the Foundation for Economic Freedom are refuted by the Harvard Study, and here's the reason why. The FEF study set out to demonstrate how many times guns are used to prevent crime. The survey was biased to find as many positive gun uses as possible, because that's they're looking for: studies to support the libertarian view.

The Harvard study wasn't looking for a result. If anything, it was set up to show how effective law abiding gun owners are in the use of their weapons. They didn't even hear from the "other guy" as to what went down, nor did they cross examine the gun owners or question their statements. The accepted what the gun owner told them was true, and never questioned their reasons. They also used retired criminal judges to assess the stories. Criminal judges are hardly flaming liberals. If anything, listening to criminals try to justify their crimes all day would make anyone hardcore conservative.

Added to which, the Harvard study results were truly surprising. It was expected that some of the gun owners acted inappropriately when drawing weapons, but not virtually ALL of them.

Last but not least, Harvard is hardly a "liberal" institution. 8 US Presidents attended Harvard from the past. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all attended Harvard. It's an even split between Democrats and Republicans.

And you lied about the CDC being banned from doing research.......do you just sit there with your jaw slack, drooling.....as the left wing implants their fake information into your skull...

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.





No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

And your used a FAKE NEWS site. Why are we not surprised:

Liberty News – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

That being said, the REAL story is not as was portrayed in the fake news site you linked to, so we'll go with this one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

The study doesn't say ANY of the things your article claims, it just reviews 5 other studies and says more studies are needed. I bolded the parts you left out.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership. The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

Gee, that's not what your fake news article said. And while the idea that the CDC cannot do a study which promotes gun control is not quite the same thing as an outright ban on research, all gun violence studies do that in one way or another. The CDC doesn't want to do this research because it's so political.

The bald fact is there is a national emergency of gun violence in the USA. But like every other American problem, you refuse to even discuss the problem, much less deal with it.

Bullshit.
If you're not in the drug/gang lifestyle and you don't fuck people you shouldn't, you are just not very likely to be murdered here, plain and simple.
Take your nonsense somewhere else.

Such a well reasoned answer, with quotes, and links. NOT.

What you're really saying is that if you're not a criminal, you don't need a gun. Which is the position of the gun control advocates.

No I'm not saying that, am I?
Not very likely doesn't mean not possible, does it?
And the gun control advocates are anti-freedom is all.

That's philosophically incorrect. No one is able to speak free with someone, who wears a weapon.

They like for people to be as helpless and dependent as possible.







They're fucking Morlocks..... and they're afraid of running out of Eloi.

By the way: I guess the word "fuck" you (=your culture) always uses came once from the word "muck". The influence of the English culture worldwide is so frightful that many people in the world think meanwhile "to fuck" is something what's terrible - but it is in the opposite indeed the sweetest thing and the most holy thing the same time to do: It means to create a new being by becoming a unity together with someone else.

 

[zaangalewa]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period. ...

Arrest both lawyers and throw them into prison. No one has any right to threaten others with guns, who use their right of free opinion

1. The Law and 2nd Amendment says that the homeowners have every right to defend their home and property, read the links on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine".
2. The protesters broke into private property, were trespassing, and threatened the homeowners.
3. You're wrong, this is the US, not the EU.

Arrest both criminals - except they acted on reason of self-defense, what I doubt. I think they demonstrated with weapons in their hands for the own opinion and against the opinion of others. That's no way to discuss. That's criminal.

What crime did they commit? Maybe in your country it's a crime, but over here it's a right.

Do you like to wait until someone starts to fire with a gun or an assault rifle into a crowd of demonstrating people? That's mad! How long had he needed with his war weapon to kill how many people within what short time span?

If they fired into the crowd they would have been arrested. If people from that group started to approach them, then they would have had every reason to believe their safety was in jeopardy which would have legally given them the ability to use deadly force.

? ...

How many people had he killed in this case before he was "arrested" (¿how?)? Whatelse than to shoot him down, before he made the first shot, would had been a real solution of this conflict? With this weapons they bound for sure the concentration of every policeman, who was in the near - what made the whole situation anyway much more unsecure on its own, because also others might had used weapons on reason of self defense. The only good idea would had been to arrest both people immediatelly - what would had been risky too. Perhaps we will have to invent something like a paralyse gun - a long distance phaser - for policemen. Best greetings from starship Enterprise.

 

[freyasman]

According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.

You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.

A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,

Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.

What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.

They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.

As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

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

www.hsph.harvard.edu

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=blr

Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed

The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...

fee.org

• Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.

www.forbes.com

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Almost all of the national surveys are coming from the NRA, with an agenda to keep handguns legal and readily available. There is little to no funding available for unbiased studies, and even less which highlight the dangers of gun ownership, because the agenda is to keep gun ownership legal and unregulated.

Since the CDC were barred by Congress by doing research on gun issues, there has been little unbiased research on the topic. The Republican Congress stopped funding research the results always came out badly for the "gun rights" crowd. Every study the CDC did, essentially came back with the same results: gun regulation saves lives.

There are few unbiased studies being done in the USA, and even fewer that show gun ownership in a negative light, despite the gut wrenching numbers of deaths, injuries, and mass killings ever year. There is no need to prove unrestricted handgun ownership is a detriment to public health. The numbers alone on the deaths, injuries, suicides, and mass shootings, make it obvious, when compared to other first world nations where handgun ownership is strictly regulated.

All of the statistics from the Foundation for Economic Freedom are refuted by the Harvard Study, and here's the reason why. The FEF study set out to demonstrate how many times guns are used to prevent crime. The survey was biased to find as many positive gun uses as possible, because that's they're looking for: studies to support the libertarian view.

The Harvard study wasn't looking for a result. If anything, it was set up to show how effective law abiding gun owners are in the use of their weapons. They didn't even hear from the "other guy" as to what went down, nor did they cross examine the gun owners or question their statements. The accepted what the gun owner told them was true, and never questioned their reasons. They also used retired criminal judges to assess the stories. Criminal judges are hardly flaming liberals. If anything, listening to criminals try to justify their crimes all day would make anyone hardcore conservative.

Added to which, the Harvard study results were truly surprising. It was expected that some of the gun owners acted inappropriately when drawing weapons, but not virtually ALL of them.

Last but not least, Harvard is hardly a "liberal" institution. 8 US Presidents attended Harvard from the past. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all attended Harvard. It's an even split between Democrats and Republicans.

And you lied about the CDC being banned from doing research.......do you just sit there with your jaw slack, drooling.....as the left wing implants their fake information into your skull...

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.





No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

And your used a FAKE NEWS site. Why are we not surprised:

Liberty News – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

That being said, the REAL story is not as was portrayed in the fake news site you linked to, so we'll go with this one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

The study doesn't say ANY of the things your article claims, it just reviews 5 other studies and says more studies are needed. I bolded the parts you left out.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership. The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

Gee, that's not what your fake news article said. And while the idea that the CDC cannot do a study which promotes gun control is not quite the same thing as an outright ban on research, all gun violence studies do that in one way or another. The CDC doesn't want to do this research because it's so political.

The bald fact is there is a national emergency of gun violence in the USA. But like every other American problem, you refuse to even discuss the problem, much less deal with it.

Bullshit.
If you're not in the drug/gang lifestyle and you don't fuck people you shouldn't, you are just not very likely to be murdered here, plain and simple.
Take your nonsense somewhere else.

Such a well reasoned answer, with quotes, and links. NOT.

What you're really saying is that if you're not a criminal, you don't need a gun. Which is the position of the gun control advocates.

No I'm not saying that, am I?
Not very likely doesn't mean not possible, does it?
And the gun control advocates are anti-freedom is all.

That's philosophically incorrect. No one is able to speak free with someone, who wears a weapon.

They like for people to be as helpless and dependent as possible.







They're fucking Morlocks..... and they're afraid of running out of Eloi.

By the way: I guess the word "fuck" you (=your culture) always uses came once from the word "muck". The influence of the English culture worldwide is so frightful that many people in the world think meanwhile "to fuck" is something what's terrible - but it is in the opposite indeed the sweetest thing and the most holy thing the same time to do: It means to create a new being by becoming a unity together with someone else.

False.

 

[zaangalewa]

No,

Well tell the DA that then.

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally

law.lis.virginia.gov

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They are not authorized to use deadly force against outdoor trespass, therefore there is no authorization to brandish a weapon they are prohibited from using.

It's not my problem.

What is not your problem? You said "It wasn't a crime" - now you see it is a crime.

No, I see that YOU believe it's a crime, and that's your problem, not mine.
I wouldn't care if they shot all of them; they ain't my people.

It is all over the world everywhere a crime to threaten someone with a weapon. Maybe except in regions of the world, where criminals take care no one is able to make laws against such a crime.

laws vary with the states in the USA------The woman with the gun was protecting her house from trespassers who in her view seemed threatening. In some states that is
legal

Maybe legal - I don't know - but in a criminal contradiction to the value "freedom of opinion". No one has any right to threaten demonstrants with a weapon. And I do not see any case of self defense in the absurde and criminal behavior of this two people. And how they hold their weapons is per se criminal and a reason not to allow them any longer to own any weapon.

You're entitled to your "opinion".

I translate this as an: Your opinion not counts.

But here in the US the Laws decide issues.
1. The McClosky's have every right to hold guns and to let the protesters know that their property will be defended, legally as allowed by law.
2. The "demonstrators" were trespassing on private property, that is criminal behavior
3. The McClosky's are NOT criminal in any way, they are well within the law, especially the "2nd Amendment", "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" which you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend.

I do not think it makes a big sense to discuss about formal systems like a system of laws and to lose out of sight the same times the values of modern democracies. And human beings need justice - independent whether real justice exists or not exists in this world here. But for sure every man made system of justice has problems and has sometimes even not a lot to do with justice. Formal systems are somehow like ideologies - in best case they look for truth within the own structures. But even in such a case it is possible laws are far from reality. So laws need always to be renewed.

It's for me totally clear that no one has any right to threaten anyone with a weapon. Or to demonstrate with a weapon anything. And specially no one has any right to try to bring anyone with weapons - or with other forms of threats - into a situation that someone will not be able to say in public freely the own opinion - for example by demonstrating together with others, who share this opinion.

And let me say: Nearly no one's home is a "castle". If it would be a castle, then it would be open for anyone who needs to be protected. And if a mob for example would try to play Mr. Lynch then it could indeed be someone defends the holiness and peace of the own home with weapons.

This law here (§ 18.2-282.A) is by the way very clear and in harmony with important substantial values. I repeat it:

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They were on their own private ground - but they threatened a public demonstration. That's the same as if they had used this weapons on public ground. While they did do so they showed the same time that they are totally unqualified to own a license for a weapon.

One of this weapons should be by the way never be in private hands for private use - it is a subject of a war weapon control law.

Okay, that's what you think.
Roger, got it, we understand.






You're wrong.







Are we done here now?

I am right - and you know this. Lots know what's right and wrong - and decide intentionally to go the wrong way, because to go the right way would need a "big jihad".

 

[freyasman]

And "fuck" is an acronym; For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge

According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.

You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.

A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,

Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.

What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.

They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.

As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

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

www.hsph.harvard.edu

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=blr

Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed

The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...

fee.org

• Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.

www.forbes.com

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Almost all of the national surveys are coming from the NRA, with an agenda to keep handguns legal and readily available. There is little to no funding available for unbiased studies, and even less which highlight the dangers of gun ownership, because the agenda is to keep gun ownership legal and unregulated.

Since the CDC were barred by Congress by doing research on gun issues, there has been little unbiased research on the topic. The Republican Congress stopped funding research the results always came out badly for the "gun rights" crowd. Every study the CDC did, essentially came back with the same results: gun regulation saves lives.

There are few unbiased studies being done in the USA, and even fewer that show gun ownership in a negative light, despite the gut wrenching numbers of deaths, injuries, and mass killings ever year. There is no need to prove unrestricted handgun ownership is a detriment to public health. The numbers alone on the deaths, injuries, suicides, and mass shootings, make it obvious, when compared to other first world nations where handgun ownership is strictly regulated.

All of the statistics from the Foundation for Economic Freedom are refuted by the Harvard Study, and here's the reason why. The FEF study set out to demonstrate how many times guns are used to prevent crime. The survey was biased to find as many positive gun uses as possible, because that's they're looking for: studies to support the libertarian view.

The Harvard study wasn't looking for a result. If anything, it was set up to show how effective law abiding gun owners are in the use of their weapons. They didn't even hear from the "other guy" as to what went down, nor did they cross examine the gun owners or question their statements. The accepted what the gun owner told them was true, and never questioned their reasons. They also used retired criminal judges to assess the stories. Criminal judges are hardly flaming liberals. If anything, listening to criminals try to justify their crimes all day would make anyone hardcore conservative.

Added to which, the Harvard study results were truly surprising. It was expected that some of the gun owners acted inappropriately when drawing weapons, but not virtually ALL of them.

Last but not least, Harvard is hardly a "liberal" institution. 8 US Presidents attended Harvard from the past. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all attended Harvard. It's an even split between Democrats and Republicans.

And you lied about the CDC being banned from doing research.......do you just sit there with your jaw slack, drooling.....as the left wing implants their fake information into your skull...

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.





No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

And your used a FAKE NEWS site. Why are we not surprised:

Liberty News – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

That being said, the REAL story is not as was portrayed in the fake news site you linked to, so we'll go with this one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

The study doesn't say ANY of the things your article claims, it just reviews 5 other studies and says more studies are needed. I bolded the parts you left out.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership. The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

Gee, that's not what your fake news article said. And while the idea that the CDC cannot do a study which promotes gun control is not quite the same thing as an outright ban on research, all gun violence studies do that in one way or another. The CDC doesn't want to do this research because it's so political.

The bald fact is there is a national emergency of gun violence in the USA. But like every other American problem, you refuse to even discuss the problem, much less deal with it.

Bullshit.
If you're not in the drug/gang lifestyle and you don't fuck people you shouldn't, you are just not very likely to be murdered here, plain and simple.
Take your nonsense somewhere else.

Such a well reasoned answer, with quotes, and links. NOT.

What you're really saying is that if you're not a criminal, you don't need a gun. Which is the position of the gun control advocates.

No I'm not saying that, am I?
Not very likely doesn't mean not possible, does it?
And the gun control advocates are anti-freedom is all.

That's philosophically incorrect. No one is able to speak free with someone, who wears a weapon.

They like for people to be as helpless and dependent as possible.







They're fucking Morlocks..... and they're afraid of running out of Eloi.

By the way: I guess the word "fuck" you (=your culture) always uses came once from the word "muck". The influence of the English culture worldwide is so frightful that many people in the world think meanwhile "to fuck" is something what's terrible - but it is in the opposite indeed the sweetest thing and the most holy thing the same time to do: It means to create a new being by becoming a unity together with someone else.

 

[freyasman]

No,

Well tell the DA that then.

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally

law.lis.virginia.gov

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They are not authorized to use deadly force against outdoor trespass, therefore there is no authorization to brandish a weapon they are prohibited from using.

It's not my problem.

What is not your problem? You said "It wasn't a crime" - now you see it is a crime.

No, I see that YOU believe it's a crime, and that's your problem, not mine.
I wouldn't care if they shot all of them; they ain't my people.

It is all over the world everywhere a crime to threaten someone with a weapon. Maybe except in regions of the world, where criminals take care no one is able to make laws against such a crime.

laws vary with the states in the USA------The woman with the gun was protecting her house from trespassers who in her view seemed threatening. In some states that is
legal

Maybe legal - I don't know - but in a criminal contradiction to the value "freedom of opinion". No one has any right to threaten demonstrants with a weapon. And I do not see any case of self defense in the absurde and criminal behavior of this two people. And how they hold their weapons is per se criminal and a reason not to allow them any longer to own any weapon.

You're entitled to your "opinion".

I translate this as an: Your opinion not counts.

But here in the US the Laws decide issues.
1. The McClosky's have every right to hold guns and to let the protesters know that their property will be defended, legally as allowed by law.
2. The "demonstrators" were trespassing on private property, that is criminal behavior
3. The McClosky's are NOT criminal in any way, they are well within the law, especially the "2nd Amendment", "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" which you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend.

I do not think it makes a big sense to discuss about formal systems like a system of laws and to lose out of sight the same times the values of modern democracies. And human beings need justice - independent whether real justice exists or not exists in this world here. But for sure every man made system of justice has problems and has sometimes even not a lot to do with justice. Formal systems are somehow like ideologies - in best case they look for truth within the own structures. But even in such a case it is possible laws are far from reality. So laws need always to be renewed.

It's for me totally clear that no one has any right to threaten anyone with a weapon. Or to demonstrate with a weapon anything. And specially no one has any right to try to bring anyone with weapons - or with other forms of threats - into a situation that someone will not be able to say in public freely the own opinion - for example by demonstrating together with others, who share this opinion.

And let me say: Nearly no one's home is a "castle". If it would be a castle, then it would be open for anyone who needs to be protected. And if a mob for example would try to play Mr. Lynch then it could indeed be someone defends the holiness and peace of the own home with weapons.

This law here (§ 18.2-282.A) is by the way very clear and in harmony with important substantial values. I repeat it:

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They were on their own private ground - but they threatened a public demonstration. That's the same as if they had used this weapons on public ground. While they did do so they showed the same time that they are totally unqualified to own a license for a weapon.

One of this weapons should be by the way never be in private hands for private use - it is a subject of a war weapon control law.

Okay, that's what you think.
Roger, got it, we understand.






You're wrong.







Are we done here now?

I am right - and you know this. Lots know what's right and wrong - and decide intentionally to go the wrong way, because to go the right way would need a "big jihad".

Your passionate belief that you're right, doesn't make it so.

But I don't believe that YOU believe this....... I think you are just another authoritarian, who wants people helpless to defy you.

 

[zaangalewa]

According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.

You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.

A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,

Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.

What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.

They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.

As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

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

www.hsph.harvard.edu

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=blr

Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed

The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...

fee.org

• Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.

www.forbes.com

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Almost all of the national surveys are coming from the NRA, with an agenda to keep handguns legal and readily available. There is little to no funding available for unbiased studies, and even less which highlight the dangers of gun ownership, because the agenda is to keep gun ownership legal and unregulated.

Since the CDC were barred by Congress by doing research on gun issues, there has been little unbiased research on the topic. The Republican Congress stopped funding research the results always came out badly for the "gun rights" crowd. Every study the CDC did, essentially came back with the same results: gun regulation saves lives.

There are few unbiased studies being done in the USA, and even fewer that show gun ownership in a negative light, despite the gut wrenching numbers of deaths, injuries, and mass killings ever year. There is no need to prove unrestricted handgun ownership is a detriment to public health. The numbers alone on the deaths, injuries, suicides, and mass shootings, make it obvious, when compared to other first world nations where handgun ownership is strictly regulated.

All of the statistics from the Foundation for Economic Freedom are refuted by the Harvard Study, and here's the reason why. The FEF study set out to demonstrate how many times guns are used to prevent crime. The survey was biased to find as many positive gun uses as possible, because that's they're looking for: studies to support the libertarian view.

The Harvard study wasn't looking for a result. If anything, it was set up to show how effective law abiding gun owners are in the use of their weapons. They didn't even hear from the "other guy" as to what went down, nor did they cross examine the gun owners or question their statements. The accepted what the gun owner told them was true, and never questioned their reasons. They also used retired criminal judges to assess the stories. Criminal judges are hardly flaming liberals. If anything, listening to criminals try to justify their crimes all day would make anyone hardcore conservative.

Added to which, the Harvard study results were truly surprising. It was expected that some of the gun owners acted inappropriately when drawing weapons, but not virtually ALL of them.

Last but not least, Harvard is hardly a "liberal" institution. 8 US Presidents attended Harvard from the past. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all attended Harvard. It's an even split between Democrats and Republicans.

And you lied about the CDC being banned from doing research.......do you just sit there with your jaw slack, drooling.....as the left wing implants their fake information into your skull...

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.





No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

And your used a FAKE NEWS site. Why are we not surprised:

Liberty News – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

That being said, the REAL story is not as was portrayed in the fake news site you linked to, so we'll go with this one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

The study doesn't say ANY of the things your article claims, it just reviews 5 other studies and says more studies are needed. I bolded the parts you left out.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership. The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

Gee, that's not what your fake news article said. And while the idea that the CDC cannot do a study which promotes gun control is not quite the same thing as an outright ban on research, all gun violence studies do that in one way or another. The CDC doesn't want to do this research because it's so political.

The bald fact is there is a national emergency of gun violence in the USA. But like every other American problem, you refuse to even discuss the problem, much less deal with it.

Bullshit.
If you're not in the drug/gang lifestyle and you don't fuck people you shouldn't, you are just not very likely to be murdered here, plain and simple.
Take your nonsense somewhere else.

Such a well reasoned answer, with quotes, and links. NOT.

What you're really saying is that if you're not a criminal, you don't need a gun. Which is the position of the gun control advocates.

No I'm not saying that, am I?
Not very likely doesn't mean not possible, does it?
And the gun control advocates are anti-freedom is all.

That's philosophically incorrect. No one is able to speak free with someone, who wears a weapon.

They like for people to be as helpless and dependent as possible.







They're fucking Morlocks..... and they're afraid of running out of Eloi.

By the way: I guess the word "fuck" you (=your culture) always uses came once from the word "muck". The influence of the English culture worldwide is so frightful that many people in the world think meanwhile "to fuck" is something what's terrible - but it is in the opposite indeed the sweetest thing and the most holy thing the same time to do: It means to create a new being by becoming a unity together with someone else.

False.

Poor guy.

 

[zaangalewa]

No,

Well tell the DA that then.

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally

law.lis.virginia.gov

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They are not authorized to use deadly force against outdoor trespass, therefore there is no authorization to brandish a weapon they are prohibited from using.

It's not my problem.

What is not your problem? You said "It wasn't a crime" - now you see it is a crime.

No, I see that YOU believe it's a crime, and that's your problem, not mine.
I wouldn't care if they shot all of them; they ain't my people.

It is all over the world everywhere a crime to threaten someone with a weapon. Maybe except in regions of the world, where criminals take care no one is able to make laws against such a crime.

laws vary with the states in the USA------The woman with the gun was protecting her house from trespassers who in her view seemed threatening. In some states that is
legal

Maybe legal - I don't know - but in a criminal contradiction to the value "freedom of opinion". No one has any right to threaten demonstrants with a weapon. And I do not see any case of self defense in the absurde and criminal behavior of this two people. And how they hold their weapons is per se criminal and a reason not to allow them any longer to own any weapon.

You're entitled to your "opinion".

I translate this as an: Your opinion not counts.

But here in the US the Laws decide issues.
1. The McClosky's have every right to hold guns and to let the protesters know that their property will be defended, legally as allowed by law.
2. The "demonstrators" were trespassing on private property, that is criminal behavior
3. The McClosky's are NOT criminal in any way, they are well within the law, especially the "2nd Amendment", "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" which you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend.

I do not think it makes a big sense to discuss about formal systems like a system of laws and to lose out of sight the same times the values of modern democracies. And human beings need justice - independent whether real justice exists or not exists in this world here. But for sure every man made system of justice has problems and has sometimes even not a lot to do with justice. Formal systems are somehow like ideologies - in best case they look for truth within the own structures. But even in such a case it is possible laws are far from reality. So laws need always to be renewed.

It's for me totally clear that no one has any right to threaten anyone with a weapon. Or to demonstrate with a weapon anything. And specially no one has any right to try to bring anyone with weapons - or with other forms of threats - into a situation that someone will not be able to say in public freely the own opinion - for example by demonstrating together with others, who share this opinion.

And let me say: Nearly no one's home is a "castle". If it would be a castle, then it would be open for anyone who needs to be protected. And if a mob for example would try to play Mr. Lynch then it could indeed be someone defends the holiness and peace of the own home with weapons.

This law here (§ 18.2-282.A) is by the way very clear and in harmony with important substantial values. I repeat it:

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They were on their own private ground - but they threatened a public demonstration. That's the same as if they had used this weapons on public ground. While they did do so they showed the same time that they are totally unqualified to own a license for a weapon.

One of this weapons should be by the way never be in private hands for private use - it is a subject of a war weapon control law.

Okay, that's what you think.
Roger, got it, we understand.






You're wrong.







Are we done here now?

I am right - and you know this. Lots know what's right and wrong - and decide intentionally to go the wrong way, because to go the right way would need a "big jihad".

Your passionate belief that you're right, doesn't make it so.

I spoke not about my faith.

But I don't believe that YOU believe this....... I think you are just another authoritarian, who wants people helpless to defy you.

Let me say: You are a damned bad psychologist. By the way: Do you know that the word "Friday" comes not from the godess Freya - but from the godess Frigg? The Langobards called her Frea. She's the mother of Balder. She protects life and marriage.

 

[freyasman]

No,

Well tell the DA that then.

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally

law.lis.virginia.gov

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They are not authorized to use deadly force against outdoor trespass, therefore there is no authorization to brandish a weapon they are prohibited from using.

It's not my problem.

What is not your problem? You said "It wasn't a crime" - now you see it is a crime.

No, I see that YOU believe it's a crime, and that's your problem, not mine.
I wouldn't care if they shot all of them; they ain't my people.

It is all over the world everywhere a crime to threaten someone with a weapon. Maybe except in regions of the world, where criminals take care no one is able to make laws against such a crime.

laws vary with the states in the USA------The woman with the gun was protecting her house from trespassers who in her view seemed threatening. In some states that is
legal

Maybe legal - I don't know - but in a criminal contradiction to the value "freedom of opinion". No one has any right to threaten demonstrants with a weapon. And I do not see any case of self defense in the absurde and criminal behavior of this two people. And how they hold their weapons is per se criminal and a reason not to allow them any longer to own any weapon.

You're entitled to your "opinion".

I translate this as an: Your opinion not counts.

But here in the US the Laws decide issues.
1. The McClosky's have every right to hold guns and to let the protesters know that their property will be defended, legally as allowed by law.
2. The "demonstrators" were trespassing on private property, that is criminal behavior
3. The McClosky's are NOT criminal in any way, they are well within the law, especially the "2nd Amendment", "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" which you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend.

I do not think it makes a big sense to discuss about formal systems like a system of laws and to lose out of sight the same times the values of modern democracies. And human beings need justice - independent whether real justice exists or not exists in this world here. But for sure every man made system of justice has problems and has sometimes even not a lot to do with justice. Formal systems are somehow like ideologies - in best case they look for truth within the own structures. But even in such a case it is possible laws are far from reality. So laws need always to be renewed.

It's for me totally clear that no one has any right to threaten anyone with a weapon. Or to demonstrate with a weapon anything. And specially no one has any right to try to bring anyone with weapons - or with other forms of threats - into a situation that someone will not be able to say in public freely the own opinion - for example by demonstrating together with others, who share this opinion.

And let me say: Nearly no one's home is a "castle". If it would be a castle, then it would be open for anyone who needs to be protected. And if a mob for example would try to play Mr. Lynch then it could indeed be someone defends the holiness and peace of the own home with weapons.

This law here (§ 18.2-282.A) is by the way very clear and in harmony with important substantial values. I repeat it:

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They were on their own private ground - but they threatened a public demonstration. That's the same as if they had used this weapons on public ground. While they did do so they showed the same time that they are totally unqualified to own a license for a weapon.

One of this weapons should be by the way never be in private hands for private use - it is a subject of a war weapon control law.

Okay, that's what you think.
Roger, got it, we understand.






You're wrong.







Are we done here now?

I am right - and you know this. Lots know what's right and wrong - and decide intentionally to go the wrong way, because to go the right way would need a "big jihad".

Your passionate belief that you're right, doesn't make it so.

I spoke not about my faith.

But I don't believe that YOU believe this....... I think you are just another authoritarian, who wants people helpless to defy you.

Let me say: You are a damned bad psychologist.

I got your number though.

 

[zaangalewa]

No,

Well tell the DA that then.

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally

law.lis.virginia.gov

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They are not authorized to use deadly force against outdoor trespass, therefore there is no authorization to brandish a weapon they are prohibited from using.

It's not my problem.

What is not your problem? You said "It wasn't a crime" - now you see it is a crime.

No, I see that YOU believe it's a crime, and that's your problem, not mine.
I wouldn't care if they shot all of them; they ain't my people.

It is all over the world everywhere a crime to threaten someone with a weapon. Maybe except in regions of the world, where criminals take care no one is able to make laws against such a crime.

laws vary with the states in the USA------The woman with the gun was protecting her house from trespassers who in her view seemed threatening. In some states that is
legal

Maybe legal - I don't know - but in a criminal contradiction to the value "freedom of opinion". No one has any right to threaten demonstrants with a weapon. And I do not see any case of self defense in the absurde and criminal behavior of this two people. And how they hold their weapons is per se criminal and a reason not to allow them any longer to own any weapon.

You're entitled to your "opinion".

I translate this as an: Your opinion not counts.

But here in the US the Laws decide issues.
1. The McClosky's have every right to hold guns and to let the protesters know that their property will be defended, legally as allowed by law.
2. The "demonstrators" were trespassing on private property, that is criminal behavior
3. The McClosky's are NOT criminal in any way, they are well within the law, especially the "2nd Amendment", "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" which you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend.

I do not think it makes a big sense to discuss about formal systems like a system of laws and to lose out of sight the same times the values of modern democracies. And human beings need justice - independent whether real justice exists or not exists in this world here. But for sure every man made system of justice has problems and has sometimes even not a lot to do with justice. Formal systems are somehow like ideologies - in best case they look for truth within the own structures. But even in such a case it is possible laws are far from reality. So laws need always to be renewed.

It's for me totally clear that no one has any right to threaten anyone with a weapon. Or to demonstrate with a weapon anything. And specially no one has any right to try to bring anyone with weapons - or with other forms of threats - into a situation that someone will not be able to say in public freely the own opinion - for example by demonstrating together with others, who share this opinion.

And let me say: Nearly no one's home is a "castle". If it would be a castle, then it would be open for anyone who needs to be protected. And if a mob for example would try to play Mr. Lynch then it could indeed be someone defends the holiness and peace of the own home with weapons.

This law here (§ 18.2-282.A) is by the way very clear and in harmony with important substantial values. I repeat it:

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They were on their own private ground - but they threatened a public demonstration. That's the same as if they had used this weapons on public ground. While they did do so they showed the same time that they are totally unqualified to own a license for a weapon.

One of this weapons should be by the way never be in private hands for private use - it is a subject of a war weapon control law.

Okay, that's what you think.
Roger, got it, we understand.






You're wrong.







Are we done here now?

I am right - and you know this. Lots know what's right and wrong - and decide intentionally to go the wrong way, because to go the right way would need a "big jihad".

Your passionate belief that you're right, doesn't make it so.

I spoke not about my faith.

But I don't believe that YOU believe this....... I think you are just another authoritarian, who wants people helpless to defy you.

Let me say: You are a damned bad psychologist.

I got your number though.

no comment

 

[2aguy]

According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.

You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.

A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,

Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.

What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.

They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.

As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

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

www.hsph.harvard.edu

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=blr

Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed

The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...

fee.org

• Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.

www.forbes.com

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Almost all of the national surveys are coming from the NRA, with an agenda to keep handguns legal and readily available. There is little to no funding available for unbiased studies, and even less which highlight the dangers of gun ownership, because the agenda is to keep gun ownership legal and unregulated.

Since the CDC were barred by Congress by doing research on gun issues, there has been little unbiased research on the topic. The Republican Congress stopped funding research the results always came out badly for the "gun rights" crowd. Every study the CDC did, essentially came back with the same results: gun regulation saves lives.

There are few unbiased studies being done in the USA, and even fewer that show gun ownership in a negative light, despite the gut wrenching numbers of deaths, injuries, and mass killings ever year. There is no need to prove unrestricted handgun ownership is a detriment to public health. The numbers alone on the deaths, injuries, suicides, and mass shootings, make it obvious, when compared to other first world nations where handgun ownership is strictly regulated.

All of the statistics from the Foundation for Economic Freedom are refuted by the Harvard Study, and here's the reason why. The FEF study set out to demonstrate how many times guns are used to prevent crime. The survey was biased to find as many positive gun uses as possible, because that's they're looking for: studies to support the libertarian view.

The Harvard study wasn't looking for a result. If anything, it was set up to show how effective law abiding gun owners are in the use of their weapons. They didn't even hear from the "other guy" as to what went down, nor did they cross examine the gun owners or question their statements. The accepted what the gun owner told them was true, and never questioned their reasons. They also used retired criminal judges to assess the stories. Criminal judges are hardly flaming liberals. If anything, listening to criminals try to justify their crimes all day would make anyone hardcore conservative.

Added to which, the Harvard study results were truly surprising. It was expected that some of the gun owners acted inappropriately when drawing weapons, but not virtually ALL of them.

Last but not least, Harvard is hardly a "liberal" institution. 8 US Presidents attended Harvard from the past. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all attended Harvard. It's an even split between Democrats and Republicans.

And you lied about the CDC being banned from doing research.......do you just sit there with your jaw slack, drooling.....as the left wing implants their fake information into your skull...

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.





No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

And your used a FAKE NEWS site. Why are we not surprised:

Liberty News – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

That being said, the REAL story is not as was portrayed in the fake news site you linked to, so we'll go with this one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

The study doesn't say ANY of the things your article claims, it just reviews 5 other studies and says more studies are needed. I bolded the parts you left out.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership. The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

Gee, that's not what your fake news article said. And while the idea that the CDC cannot do a study which promotes gun control is not quite the same thing as an outright ban on research, all gun violence studies do that in one way or another. The CDC doesn't want to do this research because it's so political.

The bald fact is there is a national emergency of gun violence in the USA. But like every other American problem, you refuse to even discuss the problem, much less deal with it.

The 108,000, you twit...comes from the National Crime Victimization Survey....do you know why, out of the other 17 studies it is the absolute lowest number of defensive gun uses?

Because the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a specific, gun self defense survey........in fact, it doesn't have the word "Gun," in the survey and does not directly ask people if they have ever used a gun for self defense........

Without asking one specific question...like.....you know....."Have you ever used a gun for self defense," it still came out with 108,000 defensive gun uses.....you twit.

What the NCVS does is ask have you been a victim of a crime. Did you do anything about it....and they got 108,000 positive responses.

The other 17 studies.....? They actually ask...have you used a gun for self defense.......

So again, you don't know what you are talking about....

And the Washington post story is behind a pay wall...

Again....actual studies that researched gun self defense....from both private and government research groups.......

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

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

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

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

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

 

[kyzr]

No,

Well tell the DA that then.

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally

law.lis.virginia.gov

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They are not authorized to use deadly force against outdoor trespass, therefore there is no authorization to brandish a weapon they are prohibited from using.

It's not my problem.

What is not your problem? You said "It wasn't a crime" - now you see it is a crime.

No, I see that YOU believe it's a crime, and that's your problem, not mine.
I wouldn't care if they shot all of them; they ain't my people.

It is all over the world everywhere a crime to threaten someone with a weapon. Maybe except in regions of the world, where criminals take care no one is able to make laws against such a crime.

laws vary with the states in the USA------The woman with the gun was protecting her house from trespassers who in her view seemed threatening. In some states that is
legal

Maybe legal - I don't know - but in a criminal contradiction to the value "freedom of opinion". No one has any right to threaten demonstrants with a weapon. And I do not see any case of self defense in the absurde and criminal behavior of this two people. And how they hold their weapons is per se criminal and a reason not to allow them any longer to own any weapon.

You're entitled to your "opinion".

I translate this as an: Your opinion not counts.

But here in the US the Laws decide issues.
1. The McClosky's have every right to hold guns and to let the protesters know that their property will be defended, legally as allowed by law.
2. The "demonstrators" were trespassing on private property, that is criminal behavior
3. The McClosky's are NOT criminal in any way, they are well within the law, especially the "2nd Amendment", "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" which you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend.

I do not think it makes a big sense to discuss about formal systems like a system of laws and to lose out of sight the same times the values of modern democracies. And human beings need justice - independent whether real justice exists or not exists in this world here. But for sure every man made system of justice has problems and has sometimes even not a lot to do with justice. Formal systems are somehow like ideologies - in best case they look for truth within the own structures. But even in such a case it is possible laws are far from reality. So laws need always to be renewed.

It's for me totally clear that no one has any right to threaten anyone with a weapon. Or to demonstrate with a weapon anything. And specially no one has any right to try to bring anyone with weapons - or with other forms of threats - into a situation that someone will not be able to say in public freely the own opinion - for example by demonstrating together with others, who share this opinion.

And let me say: Nearly no one's home is a "castle". If it would be a castle, then it would be open for anyone who needs to be protected. And if a mob for example would try to play Mr. Lynch then it could indeed be someone defends the holiness and peace of the own home with weapons.

This law here (§ 18.2-282.A) is by the way very clear and in harmony with important substantial values. I repeat it:

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They were on their own private ground - but they threatened a public demonstration. That's the same as if they had used this weapons on public ground. While they did do so they showed the same time that they are totally unqualified to own a license for a weapon.

One of this weapons should be by the way never be in private hands for private use - it is a subject of a war weapon control law.

Here's a video that describes your last post: "tap dancing"


Tap dancing is US "idiom" for trying to explain and justify an obviously wrong answer.
In the US laws govern, period. In Germany maybe the laws are different, maybe its what Germans feel is right that matters?!

 

[2aguy]

According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.

You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.

A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,

Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.

What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.

They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.

As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

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

www.hsph.harvard.edu

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=blr

Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed

The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...

fee.org

• Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.

www.forbes.com

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Almost all of the national surveys are coming from the NRA, with an agenda to keep handguns legal and readily available. There is little to no funding available for unbiased studies, and even less which highlight the dangers of gun ownership, because the agenda is to keep gun ownership legal and unregulated.

Since the CDC were barred by Congress by doing research on gun issues, there has been little unbiased research on the topic. The Republican Congress stopped funding research the results always came out badly for the "gun rights" crowd. Every study the CDC did, essentially came back with the same results: gun regulation saves lives.

There are few unbiased studies being done in the USA, and even fewer that show gun ownership in a negative light, despite the gut wrenching numbers of deaths, injuries, and mass killings ever year. There is no need to prove unrestricted handgun ownership is a detriment to public health. The numbers alone on the deaths, injuries, suicides, and mass shootings, make it obvious, when compared to other first world nations where handgun ownership is strictly regulated.

All of the statistics from the Foundation for Economic Freedom are refuted by the Harvard Study, and here's the reason why. The FEF study set out to demonstrate how many times guns are used to prevent crime. The survey was biased to find as many positive gun uses as possible, because that's they're looking for: studies to support the libertarian view.

The Harvard study wasn't looking for a result. If anything, it was set up to show how effective law abiding gun owners are in the use of their weapons. They didn't even hear from the "other guy" as to what went down, nor did they cross examine the gun owners or question their statements. The accepted what the gun owner told them was true, and never questioned their reasons. They also used retired criminal judges to assess the stories. Criminal judges are hardly flaming liberals. If anything, listening to criminals try to justify their crimes all day would make anyone hardcore conservative.

Added to which, the Harvard study results were truly surprising. It was expected that some of the gun owners acted inappropriately when drawing weapons, but not virtually ALL of them.

Last but not least, Harvard is hardly a "liberal" institution. 8 US Presidents attended Harvard from the past. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all attended Harvard. It's an even split between Democrats and Republicans.

And you lied about the CDC being banned from doing research.......do you just sit there with your jaw slack, drooling.....as the left wing implants their fake information into your skull...

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.





No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

And your used a FAKE NEWS site. Why are we not surprised:

Liberty News – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

That being said, the REAL story is not as was portrayed in the fake news site you linked to, so we'll go with this one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

The study doesn't say ANY of the things your article claims, it just reviews 5 other studies and says more studies are needed. I bolded the parts you left out.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership. The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

Gee, that's not what your fake news article said. And while the idea that the CDC cannot do a study which promotes gun control is not quite the same thing as an outright ban on research, all gun violence studies do that in one way or another. The CDC doesn't want to do this research because it's so political.

The bald fact is there is a national emergency of gun violence in the USA. But like every other American problem, you refuse to even discuss the problem, much less deal with it.

I gave a short list of the actual gun research the CDC did after you said they were banned........they got caught with their 1.2 million defensive gun uses number so they stopped doing that research...because it doesn't promote the lie that people don't use guns for self defense........notice the Department of Justice at the same time also found 1.5 million defensive gun uses.........

YOu don't know what you are talking about..

And we are not facing a gun emergency.....as 27 years of data show....

How do you define a "Gun Emergency," when as more people buy and own guns, our gun murder rate goes down 49%.........our gun crime rate goes down 75%?

How do you get to an emergency with numbers like that?

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.

You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.

A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,

Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.

What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.

They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.

As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

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

www.hsph.harvard.edu

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=blr

Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed

The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...

fee.org

• Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.

www.forbes.com

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Almost all of the national surveys are coming from the NRA, with an agenda to keep handguns legal and readily available. There is little to no funding available for unbiased studies, and even less which highlight the dangers of gun ownership, because the agenda is to keep gun ownership legal and unregulated.

Since the CDC were barred by Congress by doing research on gun issues, there has been little unbiased research on the topic. The Republican Congress stopped funding research the results always came out badly for the "gun rights" crowd. Every study the CDC did, essentially came back with the same results: gun regulation saves lives.

There are few unbiased studies being done in the USA, and even fewer that show gun ownership in a negative light, despite the gut wrenching numbers of deaths, injuries, and mass killings ever year. There is no need to prove unrestricted handgun ownership is a detriment to public health. The numbers alone on the deaths, injuries, suicides, and mass shootings, make it obvious, when compared to other first world nations where handgun ownership is strictly regulated.

All of the statistics from the Foundation for Economic Freedom are refuted by the Harvard Study, and here's the reason why. The FEF study set out to demonstrate how many times guns are used to prevent crime. The survey was biased to find as many positive gun uses as possible, because that's they're looking for: studies to support the libertarian view.

The Harvard study wasn't looking for a result. If anything, it was set up to show how effective law abiding gun owners are in the use of their weapons. They didn't even hear from the "other guy" as to what went down, nor did they cross examine the gun owners or question their statements. The accepted what the gun owner told them was true, and never questioned their reasons. They also used retired criminal judges to assess the stories. Criminal judges are hardly flaming liberals. If anything, listening to criminals try to justify their crimes all day would make anyone hardcore conservative.

Added to which, the Harvard study results were truly surprising. It was expected that some of the gun owners acted inappropriately when drawing weapons, but not virtually ALL of them.

Last but not least, Harvard is hardly a "liberal" institution. 8 US Presidents attended Harvard from the past. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all attended Harvard. It's an even split between Democrats and Republicans.

And you lied about the CDC being banned from doing research.......do you just sit there with your jaw slack, drooling.....as the left wing implants their fake information into your skull...

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.





No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

And your used a FAKE NEWS site. Why are we not surprised:

Liberty News – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

That being said, the REAL story is not as was portrayed in the fake news site you linked to, so we'll go with this one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

The study doesn't say ANY of the things your article claims, it just reviews 5 other studies and says more studies are needed. I bolded the parts you left out.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership. The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

Gee, that's not what your fake news article said. And while the idea that the CDC cannot do a study which promotes gun control is not quite the same thing as an outright ban on research, all gun violence studies do that in one way or another. The CDC doesn't want to do this research because it's so political.

The bald fact is there is a national emergency of gun violence in the USA. But like every other American problem, you refuse to even discuss the problem, much less deal with it.

We do not have a "gun emergency," in the United States....

95% of our gun crime is tied directly to the policies of the democrat party......their judges, prosecutors and politicians who keep releasing violent, repeat gun offenders out of jail on bond....or on "no cash," bond, .........and out of prison on short sentences.....sentences shortened because the democrat prosecutors keep plea bargaining the gun charges away.....

If the democrat party in this country stopped releasing violent gun criminals over and over again, our gun crime rate in democrat party controlled cities would drop 95%..........

You don't understand the issue...you just hate guns. The issue is the democrat party and it's love of violent criminals......releasing them over and over again....it is these criminals that do the killing in the democrat party controlled cities....and they keep releasing them, over and over again........

As I have shown you....over and over again.....normal people who own and carry guns for self defense do not create more gun crime....as the fact that as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%.....

How do you explain that?

Our gun crime rate went down 75%....

How do you explain that?


Before you go any farther, how about you explain how it is that as more Americans own and carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%, and our gun murder rate went down 49%?

Explain that....before you do anything else....

 

[2aguy]

According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.

You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.

A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,

Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.

What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.

They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.

As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

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

www.hsph.harvard.edu

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=blr

Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed

The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...

fee.org

• Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.

www.forbes.com

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Almost all of the national surveys are coming from the NRA, with an agenda to keep handguns legal and readily available. There is little to no funding available for unbiased studies, and even less which highlight the dangers of gun ownership, because the agenda is to keep gun ownership legal and unregulated.

Since the CDC were barred by Congress by doing research on gun issues, there has been little unbiased research on the topic. The Republican Congress stopped funding research the results always came out badly for the "gun rights" crowd. Every study the CDC did, essentially came back with the same results: gun regulation saves lives.

There are few unbiased studies being done in the USA, and even fewer that show gun ownership in a negative light, despite the gut wrenching numbers of deaths, injuries, and mass killings ever year. There is no need to prove unrestricted handgun ownership is a detriment to public health. The numbers alone on the deaths, injuries, suicides, and mass shootings, make it obvious, when compared to other first world nations where handgun ownership is strictly regulated.

All of the statistics from the Foundation for Economic Freedom are refuted by the Harvard Study, and here's the reason why. The FEF study set out to demonstrate how many times guns are used to prevent crime. The survey was biased to find as many positive gun uses as possible, because that's they're looking for: studies to support the libertarian view.

The Harvard study wasn't looking for a result. If anything, it was set up to show how effective law abiding gun owners are in the use of their weapons. They didn't even hear from the "other guy" as to what went down, nor did they cross examine the gun owners or question their statements. The accepted what the gun owner told them was true, and never questioned their reasons. They also used retired criminal judges to assess the stories. Criminal judges are hardly flaming liberals. If anything, listening to criminals try to justify their crimes all day would make anyone hardcore conservative.

Added to which, the Harvard study results were truly surprising. It was expected that some of the gun owners acted inappropriately when drawing weapons, but not virtually ALL of them.

Last but not least, Harvard is hardly a "liberal" institution. 8 US Presidents attended Harvard from the past. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all attended Harvard. It's an even split between Democrats and Republicans.

And you lied about the CDC being banned from doing research.......do you just sit there with your jaw slack, drooling.....as the left wing implants their fake information into your skull...

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.





No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

And your used a FAKE NEWS site. Why are we not surprised:

Liberty News – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

That being said, the REAL story is not as was portrayed in the fake news site you linked to, so we'll go with this one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

The study doesn't say ANY of the things your article claims, it just reviews 5 other studies and says more studies are needed. I bolded the parts you left out.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership. The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

Gee, that's not what your fake news article said. And while the idea that the CDC cannot do a study which promotes gun control is not quite the same thing as an outright ban on research, all gun violence studies do that in one way or another. The CDC doesn't want to do this research because it's so political.

The bald fact is there is a national emergency of gun violence in the USA. But like every other American problem, you refuse to even discuss the problem, much less deal with it.

Bullshit.
If you're not in the drug/gang lifestyle and you don't fuck people you shouldn't, you are just not very likely to be murdered here, plain and simple.
Take your nonsense somewhere else.

Such a well reasoned answer, with quotes, and links. NOT.

What you're really saying is that if you're not a criminal, you don't need a gun. Which is the position of the gun control advocates.

1.2 million Americans who use their guns to stop rape, robbery and murder would say you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

No,

Well tell the DA that then.

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally

law.lis.virginia.gov

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They are not authorized to use deadly force against outdoor trespass, therefore there is no authorization to brandish a weapon they are prohibited from using.

It's not my problem.

What is not your problem? You said "It wasn't a crime" - now you see it is a crime.

No, I see that YOU believe it's a crime, and that's your problem, not mine.
I wouldn't care if they shot all of them; they ain't my people.

It is all over the world everywhere a crime to threaten someone with a weapon. Maybe except in regions of the world, where criminals take care no one is able to make laws against such a crime.

laws vary with the states in the USA------The woman with the gun was protecting her house from trespassers who in her view seemed threatening. In some states that is
legal

Maybe legal - I don't know - but in a criminal contradiction to the value "freedom of opinion". No one has any right to threaten demonstrants with a weapon. And I do not see any case of self defense in the absurde and criminal behavior of this two people. And how they hold their weapons is per se criminal and a reason not to allow them any longer to own any weapon.

You're entitled to your "opinion".

I translate this as an: Your opinion not counts.

But here in the US the Laws decide issues.
1. The McClosky's have every right to hold guns and to let the protesters know that their property will be defended, legally as allowed by law.
2. The "demonstrators" were trespassing on private property, that is criminal behavior
3. The McClosky's are NOT criminal in any way, they are well within the law, especially the "2nd Amendment", "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" which you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend.

I do not think it makes a big sense to discuss about formal systems like a system of laws and to lose out of sight the same times the values of modern democracies. And human beings need justice - independent whether real justice exists or not exists in this world here. But for sure every man made system of justice has problems and has sometimes even not a lot to do with justice. Formal systems are somehow like ideologies - in best case they look for truth within the own structures. But even in such a case it is possible laws are far from reality. So laws need always to be renewed.

It's for me totally clear that no one has any right to threaten anyone with a weapon. Or to demonstrate with a weapon anything. And specially no one has any right to try to bring anyone with weapons - or with other forms of threats - into a situation that someone will not be able to say in public freely the own opinion - for example by demonstrating together with others, who share this opinion.

And let me say: Nearly no one's home is a "castle". If it would be a castle, then it would be open for anyone who needs to be protected. And if a mob for example would try to play Mr. Lynch then it could indeed be someone defends the holiness and peace of the own home with weapons.

This law here (§ 18.2-282.A) is by the way very clear and in harmony with important substantial values. I repeat it:

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They were on their own private ground - but they threatened a public demonstration. That's the same as if they had used this weapons on public ground. While they did do so they showed the same time that they are totally unqualified to own a license for a weapon.

One of this weapons should be by the way never be in private hands for private use - it is a subject of a war weapon control law.

Neither of the weapons the couple had were "Weapons of War." The AR-15 rifle is a civilian rifle, as is the pistol.

The 5 shot, pump action shotgun? That is an actual weapon of war, in use by actual militaries around the world.

The bolt action, deer hunting rifle? That is an actual weapon of war, in use by actual militaries around the world.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[HaShev]

I don't see anyone talking about the latest protests at their house I'm assuming outside the gate this time? It's so obvious and is written in their play book that the radicals like to antagonize and bait confrontation, so they can say "look" and "see we told you how they are" in order to displace blame and cause support for tearing down and restructuring to stupid ideas they have of how things should be, but in reality have affects their narrow brainwashed minds don't ever take into consideration.
MSM does not detail what's happening, because it looks bad for all the things they supported and things they opposed now are exposed as failed logic.
Without details I'm assuming it was outside the gates and done as revenge as a scare tactic=terrorist threat. Also to obstruct justice, instill fear if they prosecute.
I would have left land mines for the protestors along the premises, no not literal ones, just a little present from all my friends and family's dogs.