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

[zaangalewa]

...

What's your problem with punks - and why do you think you have any right to "use deadly force" against them? You have not any right to use any force or violence against anyone.

Yes I do have a right. It's in our laws.

Don't tell me bullshit.

Which attackers? "Came after your" means they attack you?

You don't have to wait until you are attacked to use deadly force. Again, it's what I "believe" they are attempting to do is what gives me the right to use such force.

What a bullshit. What you "believe" has to be real and to be plausible in such a case - otherwise every jugde will think you are a liar. No one has any "license to kill", also not agent 007.

Everyone has the right to defend himselve - also with deadly methods. That's a question of adequacy. But this has nothing to do with this what this people did. Specially not in a situisons where the president of the USA tries to bring the USA into a civil war and tries to wake since years dark and evil mights in all people.

The President has nothing to do with this situation. It's the Mayor of that city that does. Most all cases, crime is stopped by a potential victim brandishing a firearm, and that's what this couple did. By showing their guns, they were displaying they were ready to protect themselves against an attack by this mob.

I do not try to speak about Trump. Meanwhile Trump is in my eyes only a criminal idiot any longer and it helps no one anything what this man says nor what are the answers on his stupidities. So I changed this first draft. You answered before I finished the text. Read again what I wrote.

PS: Here's the text I finally wrote in this context:

...
Everyone has the right to defend himselve - also with deadly methods. That's a question of adequacy.

But this has nothing to do with this what this people with their weapons did. They provoked in a very dangerous way. They were a risk for their own life and/or a risk for the life of others.

I think meanwhile too many people of the USA under Trump fight for a civil war and not for the United States of America.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Don't tell me bullshit.

It's not bullshit.

What a bullshit. What you "believe" has to be real and to be plausible in such a case - otherwise every jugde will think you are a liar. No one has any "license to kill", also not agent 007.

It's not a license to kill, it's a license to use deadly force against a potential attack. Need me to link our laws for you? I'll be happy to do it. I'm a licensed CCW carrier, and I do know the laws very well.

I do not try to speak about Trump. Meanwhile Trump is in my eyes only a criminal idiot any longer and it helps no one anything what this man says nor what are the answers on his stupidities. So I changed this first draft. You answered before I finished the text. Read again what I wrote.

Well you did speak of Trump and that's why I responded with Trump. I'm sorry, but it's very difficult to understand what you are writing about. Your translation program is not very good.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I do not understand what you like to say with this sentence.

What I'm saying is that the police don't arrest people without having a charge in which to arrest them with. This is called False Arrest. If you are arrested falsely, you can sue the city who's police arrested you. ...

If the police arrests me falsly then I will clear with the policemen what went wrong and then they will excuse themselve and I'm free. Problem solved.

Not in this country. Our people are lawsuit happy here. They sue for the stupidest things.

 

[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....

You have very very serious weapon problems in the USA. Example: In a normal year more than 250,000 policemen shoot in Germany less than 100 shots against human beigns - including warn shots - and less than 10 crimnals die and nearly never a policeman loses his life during shootings.

It's not a weapons problem we have here, it's a culture problem. We have groups of people here who are inherently more violent than others. When you have the diversity we have, then you can opine.

40% of all children in Germany have a migration background.

Until then, you need to live here to understand what our real problems are.

One of your real problems is the weapon fetishism in the USA.

You were saying?

BERLIN (Reuters) - Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country’s political debate over migrants.

Violent crime rises in Germany and is attributed to refugees

Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country's political debate over migrants.

www.reuters.com

 

[2aguy]

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.

In our country if you are falsely arrested, the victims who were arrested can sue the city, so police are generally careful about who they arrest.

I do not understand what you like to say with this sentence.

It's difficult to understand what you are saying because of your English.

But I "fear" indeed you understand, what I say - isn't it?

How many people did the homeowner kill before this? I don't understand if that's what you're asking, or why you would ask it.

I ask nothing.

As for the rest I don't understand, let me be as clear as possible: Our laws are much different than yours.

Are they? How can this be substantially? Depends real justice on laws?

In our country, a person can use deadly force if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. I'm an older person, and if three young punks came after me which of course I would not be able to outrun or fight, I can legally use deadly force against them.

What's your problem with punks - and why do you think you have any right to "use deadly force" against them? You have not any right to use any force or violence against anyone.

None of the attackers have to be armed.

Which attackers? "Came after your" means they attack you?

Why? Because I would have every reason to believe that these three lowlifes could cause me serious bodily harm or death without weapons.

Everyone has the right to defend himselve - also with deadly methods. That's a question of adequacy.

But this has nothing to do with this what this people with their weapons did. They provoked in a very dangerous way. They were a risk for their own life and/or a risk for the life of others.

I think meanwhile too many people of the USA under Trump fight for a civil war and not for the United States of America.

You don't understand.....

The people in the streets burning, looting and killing .....even killing Black children....are not Trump supporters....they are supporters of joe biden and the democrat party.

 

[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.

In our country if you are falsely arrested, the victims who were arrested can sue the city, so police are generally careful about who they arrest.

I do not understand what you like to say with this sentence.

It's difficult to understand what you are saying because of your English.

But I "fear" indeed you understand, what I say - isn't it?

How many people did the homeowner kill before this? I don't understand if that's what you're asking, or why you would ask it.

I ask nothing.

As for the rest I don't understand, let me be as clear as possible: Our laws are much different than yours.

Are they? How can this be substantially? Depends real justice on laws?

In our country, a person can use deadly force if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. I'm an older person, and if three young punks came after me which of course I would not be able to outrun or fight, I can legally use deadly force against them.

What's your problem with punks - and why do you think you have any right to "use deadly force" against them? You have not any right to use any force or violence against anyone.

None of the attackers have to be armed.

Which attackers? "Came after your" means they attack you?

Why? Because I would have every reason to believe that these three lowlifes could cause me serious bodily harm or death without weapons.

Everyone has the right to defend himselve - also with deadly methods. That's a question of adequacy.

But this has nothing to do with this what this people with their weapons did. They provoked in a very dangerous way. They were a risk for their own life and/or a risk for the life of others.

I think meanwhile too many people of the USA under Trump fight for a civil war and not for the United States of America.

You don't understand.....

The people in the streets burning, looting and killing .....even killing Black children....are not Trump supporters....they are supporters of joe biden and the democrat party.

Don't tell me irreal bullshit.

 

[badbob85037]

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

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

 

[badbob85037]

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.

In our country if you are falsely arrested, the victims who were arrested can sue the city, so police are generally careful about who they arrest.

I do not understand what you like to say with this sentence.

It's difficult to understand what you are saying because of your English.

But I "fear" indeed you understand, what I say - isn't it?

How many people did the homeowner kill before this? I don't understand if that's what you're asking, or why you would ask it.

I ask nothing.

As for the rest I don't understand, let me be as clear as possible: Our laws are much different than yours.

Are they? How can this be substantially? Depends real justice on laws?

In our country, a person can use deadly force if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. I'm an older person, and if three young punks came after me which of course I would not be able to outrun or fight, I can legally use deadly force against them.

What's your problem with punks - and why do you think you have any right to "use deadly force" against them? You have not any right to use any force or violence against anyone.

None of the attackers have to be armed.

Which attackers? "Came after your" means they attack you?

Why? Because I would have every reason to believe that these three lowlifes could cause me serious bodily harm or death without weapons.

Everyone has the right to defend himselve - also with deadly methods. That's a question of adequacy.

But this has nothing to do with this what this people with their weapons did. They provoked in a very dangerous way. They were a risk for their own life and/or a risk for the life of others.

I think meanwhile too many people of the USA under Trump fight for a civil war and not for the United States of America.

You don't understand.....

The people in the streets burning, looting and killing .....even killing Black children....are not Trump supporters....they are supporters of joe biden and the democrat party.

FOUL! You can't use facts in the gun debate. You can quote Sarah Brady or her husband, Side Show James, THAT'S IT.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Why?

Why do you assume that someone who is armed will become violent? Maybe you don't trust your own self-control?

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.

This is incorrect.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fuck?s=tIt comes from German (middle Dutch).

 

[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.

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

You have very very serious weapon problems in the USA. Example: In a normal year more than 250,000 policemen shoot in Germany less than 100 shots against human beigns - including warn shots - and less than 10 crimnals die and nearly never a policeman loses his life during shootings.

It's not a weapons problem we have here, it's a culture problem. We have groups of people here who are inherently more violent than others. When you have the diversity we have, then you can opine.

40% of all children in Germany have a migration background.

Until then, you need to live here to understand what our real problems are.

One of your real problems is the weapon fetishism in the USA.

You were saying?

BERLIN (Reuters) - Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country’s political debate over migrants.

Violent crime rises in Germany and is attributed to refugees

Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country's political debate over migrants.

www.reuters.com

That's an hysteric report from the year 2015, when we had about 2 million migrants in Germany. 1 million of them were refugees, which came from outside of the EU from war regions. When did you have the last time your history in only one year about 8 million refugees?

Was not so easy to solve all this proböems. Let me take a short look:

Murder: 2010: 281 - 2011: 357 - 2012: 281 - 2013: 282 - 2014: 298 - 2015: 296 - 2016: 373 - 2017: 405 - 2018: 386 - 2019: 245

245 times murder in a year in 2019 was the best value since the year 2000. In this year our killing-rate was less than 10% of the killing-rate of the USA.

 

[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.

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

You have very very serious weapon problems in the USA. Example: In a normal year more than 250,000 policemen shoot in Germany less than 100 shots against human beigns - including warn shots - and less than 10 crimnals die and nearly never a policeman loses his life during shootings.

It's not a weapons problem we have here, it's a culture problem. We have groups of people here who are inherently more violent than others. When you have the diversity we have, then you can opine.

40% of all children in Germany have a migration background.

Until then, you need to live here to understand what our real problems are.

One of your real problems is the weapon fetishism in the USA.

You were saying?

BERLIN (Reuters) - Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country’s political debate over migrants.

Violent crime rises in Germany and is attributed to refugees

Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country's political debate over migrants.

www.reuters.com

That's an hysteric report from the year 2015, when we had about 2 million migrants in Germany. 1 million of them were refugees, which came from outside of the EU from war regions. When did you have the last time your history in only one year about 8 million refugees?

Was not so easy to solve all this proböems. Let me take a short look:

Murder: 2010: 281 - 2011: 357 - 2012: 281 - 2013: 282 - 2014: 298 - 2015: 296 - 2016: 373 - 2017: 405 - 2018: 386 - 2019: 245

245 times murder in a year in 2019 was the best value since the year 2000. In this year our killing-rate was less than 10% of the killing-rate of the USA.

Yeah, when we want your foreign opinion, we'll call you.

 

[zaangalewa]

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

Why?

Think!

Why do you assume that someone who is armed will become violent? Maybe you don't trust your own self-control?

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.

This is incorrect.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fuck?s=tIt comes from German (middle Dutch).

To use the word "fuck" as a swearword (correct would be "spearword") is typically for the English culture. Meanwhile lots of people worldwide do so, because your culture spreads this bullshit.

 

[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.

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

You have very very serious weapon problems in the USA. Example: In a normal year more than 250,000 policemen shoot in Germany less than 100 shots against human beigns - including warn shots - and less than 10 crimnals die and nearly never a policeman loses his life during shootings.

It's not a weapons problem we have here, it's a culture problem. We have groups of people here who are inherently more violent than others. When you have the diversity we have, then you can opine.

40% of all children in Germany have a migration background.

Until then, you need to live here to understand what our real problems are.

One of your real problems is the weapon fetishism in the USA.

You were saying?

BERLIN (Reuters) - Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country’s political debate over migrants.

Violent crime rises in Germany and is attributed to refugees

Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country's political debate over migrants.

www.reuters.com

That's an hysteric report from the year 2015, when we had about 2 million migrants in Germany. 1 million of them were refugees, which came from outside of the EU from war regions. When did you have the last time your history in only one year about 8 million refugees?

Was not so easy to solve all this proböems. Let me take a short look:

Murder: 2010: 281 - 2011: 357 - 2012: 281 - 2013: 282 - 2014: 298 - 2015: 296 - 2016: 373 - 2017: 405 - 2018: 386 - 2019: 245

245 times murder in a year in 2019 was the best value since the year 2000. In this year our killing-rate was less than 10% of the killing-rate of the USA.

Yeah, when we want your foreign opinion, we'll call you.

Ignorance, intrigance, arrogance ... where are your aggressions? ... Oh - I forgot: We speak about the US-American weapon fetishism.

 

[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.

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

You have very very serious weapon problems in the USA. Example: In a normal year more than 250,000 policemen shoot in Germany less than 100 shots against human beigns - including warn shots - and less than 10 crimnals die and nearly never a policeman loses his life during shootings.

It's not a weapons problem we have here, it's a culture problem. We have groups of people here who are inherently more violent than others. When you have the diversity we have, then you can opine.

40% of all children in Germany have a migration background.

Until then, you need to live here to understand what our real problems are.

One of your real problems is the weapon fetishism in the USA.

You were saying?

BERLIN (Reuters) - Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country’s political debate over migrants.

Violent crime rises in Germany and is attributed to refugees

Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country's political debate over migrants.

www.reuters.com

That's an hysteric report from the year 2015, when we had about 2 million migrants in Germany. 1 million of them were refugees, which came from outside of the EU from war regions. When did you have the last time your history in only one year about 8 million refugees?

Was not so easy to solve all this proböems. Let me take a short look:

Murder: 2010: 281 - 2011: 357 - 2012: 281 - 2013: 282 - 2014: 298 - 2015: 296 - 2016: 373 - 2017: 405 - 2018: 386 - 2019: 245

245 times murder in a year in 2019 was the best value since the year 2000. In this year our killing-rate was less than 10% of the killing-rate of the USA.

Yeah, when we want your foreign opinion, we'll call you.

Ignorance, intrigance, arrogance ... where are your aggressions? ... Oh - I forgot: We speak about the US-American weapon fetishism.

No, WE (not you) speak about RIGHTS. You seem to know nothing about it.

 

[zaangalewa]

Don't tell me bullshit.

It's not bullshit.

What a bullshit. What you "believe" has to be real and to be plausible in such a case - otherwise every jugde will think you are a liar. No one has any "license to kill", also not agent 007.

It's not a license to kill, it's a license to use deadly force against a potential attack. Need me to link our laws for you? I'll be happy to do it. I'm a licensed CCW carrier, and I do know the laws very well.

I do not try to speak about Trump. Meanwhile Trump is in my eyes only a criminal idiot any longer and it helps no one anything what this man says nor what are the answers on his stupidities. So I changed this first draft. You answered before I finished the text. Read again what I wrote.

Well you did speak of Trump and that's why I responded with Trump. I'm sorry, but it's very difficult to understand what you are writing about. Your translation program is not very good.

no comment

 

[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.

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

You have very very serious weapon problems in the USA. Example: In a normal year more than 250,000 policemen shoot in Germany less than 100 shots against human beigns - including warn shots - and less than 10 crimnals die and nearly never a policeman loses his life during shootings.

It's not a weapons problem we have here, it's a culture problem. We have groups of people here who are inherently more violent than others. When you have the diversity we have, then you can opine.

40% of all children in Germany have a migration background.

Until then, you need to live here to understand what our real problems are.

One of your real problems is the weapon fetishism in the USA.

You were saying?

BERLIN (Reuters) - Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country’s political debate over migrants.

Violent crime rises in Germany and is attributed to refugees

Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country's political debate over migrants.

www.reuters.com

That's an hysteric report from the year 2015, when we had about 2 million migrants in Germany. 1 million of them were refugees, which came from outside of the EU from war regions. When did you have the last time your history in only one year about 8 million refugees?

Was not so easy to solve all this proböems. Let me take a short look:

Murder: 2010: 281 - 2011: 357 - 2012: 281 - 2013: 282 - 2014: 298 - 2015: 296 - 2016: 373 - 2017: 405 - 2018: 386 - 2019: 245

245 times murder in a year in 2019 was the best value since the year 2000. In this year our killing-rate was less than 10% of the killing-rate of the USA.

Yeah, when we want your foreign opinion, we'll call you.

Ignorance, intrigance, arrogance ... where are your aggressions? ... Oh - I forgot: We speak about the US-American weapon fetishism.

No, WE (not you) speak about RIGHTS. You seem to know nothing about it.

no comment

 

[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.

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

You have very very serious weapon problems in the USA. Example: In a normal year more than 250,000 policemen shoot in Germany less than 100 shots against human beigns - including warn shots - and less than 10 crimnals die and nearly never a policeman loses his life during shootings.

It's not a weapons problem we have here, it's a culture problem. We have groups of people here who are inherently more violent than others. When you have the diversity we have, then you can opine.

40% of all children in Germany have a migration background.

Until then, you need to live here to understand what our real problems are.

One of your real problems is the weapon fetishism in the USA.

You were saying?

BERLIN (Reuters) - Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country’s political debate over migrants.

Violent crime rises in Germany and is attributed to refugees

Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country's political debate over migrants.

www.reuters.com

That's an hysteric report from the year 2015, when we had about 2 million migrants in Germany. 1 million of them were refugees, which came from outside of the EU from war regions. When did you have the last time your history in only one year about 8 million refugees?

Was not so easy to solve all this proböems. Let me take a short look:

Murder: 2010: 281 - 2011: 357 - 2012: 281 - 2013: 282 - 2014: 298 - 2015: 296 - 2016: 373 - 2017: 405 - 2018: 386 - 2019: 245

245 times murder in a year in 2019 was the best value since the year 2000. In this year our killing-rate was less than 10% of the killing-rate of the USA.

Yeah, when we want your foreign opinion, we'll call you.

Ignorance, intrigance, arrogance ... where are your aggressions? ... Oh - I forgot: We speak about the US-American weapon fetishism.

No, WE (not you) speak about RIGHTS. You seem to know nothing about it.

no comment

good idea

 

[freyasman]

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.

In our country if you are falsely arrested, the victims who were arrested can sue the city, so police are generally careful about who they arrest.

I do not understand what you like to say with this sentence.

It's difficult to understand what you are saying because of your English.

But I "fear" indeed you understand, what I say - isn't it?

How many people did the homeowner kill before this? I don't understand if that's what you're asking, or why you would ask it.

I ask nothing.

As for the rest I don't understand, let me be as clear as possible: Our laws are much different than yours.

Are they? How can this be substantially? Depends real justice on laws?

In our country, a person can use deadly force if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. I'm an older person, and if three young punks came after me which of course I would not be able to outrun or fight, I can legally use deadly force against them.

What's your problem with punks - and why do you think you have any right to "use deadly force" against them? You have not any right to use any force or violence against anyone.

None of the attackers have to be armed.

Which attackers? "Came after your" means they attack you?

Why? Because I would have every reason to believe that these three lowlifes could cause me serious bodily harm or death without weapons.

Everyone has the right to defend himselve - also with deadly methods. That's a question of adequacy.

But this has nothing to do with this what this people with their weapons did. They provoked in a very dangerous way. They were a risk for their own life and/or a risk for the life of others.

I think meanwhile too many people of the USA under Trump fight for a civil war and not for the United States of America.

You need a better translation program; you're missing important shit.

 

[kyzr]

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....

You have very very serious weapon problems in the USA. Example: In a normal year more than 250,000 policemen shoot in Germany less than 100 shots against human beigns - including warn shots - and less than 10 crimnals die and nearly never a policeman loses his life during shootings.

It's not a weapons problem we have here, it's a culture problem. We have groups of people here who are inherently more violent than others. When you have the diversity we have, then you can opine.

40% of all children in Germany have a migration background.

Until then, you need to live here to understand what our real problems are.

One of your real problems is the weapon fetishism in the USA.

Criminals ALWAYS get weapons. The problem is the criminals, not the weapons. Look at the type of animals we have here in the US:

Man fatally shot while holding hands with pigtailed daughter in the Bronx, shocking video shows

The unsuspecting victim was crossing Sheridan St. at E. 170th St. in Mount Eden shortly before 6 p.m., holding the girl’s hand, when a car rolled up and a passenger leaned out and started shooting shooting.

www.nydailynews.com

 

[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....

You have very very serious weapon problems in the USA. Example: In a normal year more than 250,000 policemen shoot in Germany less than 100 shots against human beigns - including warn shots - and less than 10 crimnals die and nearly never a policeman loses his life during shootings.

It's not a weapons problem we have here, it's a culture problem. We have groups of people here who are inherently more violent than others. When you have the diversity we have, then you can opine.

40% of all children in Germany have a migration background.

Until then, you need to live here to understand what our real problems are.

One of your real problems is the weapon fetishism in the USA.

You were saying?

BERLIN (Reuters) - Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country’s political debate over migrants.

Violent crime rises in Germany and is attributed to refugees

Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country's political debate over migrants.

www.reuters.com

That's an hysteric report from the year 2015, when we had about 2 million migrants in Germany. 1 million of them were refugees, which came from outside of the EU from war regions. When did you have the last time your history in only one year about 8 million refugees?

Was not so easy to solve all this proböems. Let me take a short look:

Murder: 2010: 281 - 2011: 357 - 2012: 281 - 2013: 282 - 2014: 298 - 2015: 296 - 2016: 373 - 2017: 405 - 2018: 386 - 2019: 245

245 times murder in a year in 2019 was the best value since the year 2000. In this year our killing-rate was less than 10% of the killing-rate of the USA.

And? We have a political party, the democrat party, that keeps releasing the most violent criminals back onto our streets, over and over again....it is these criminals who are committing murder over and over again.

When you have a political party in your country that will take your most violent criminals, and release them from jail on bond.......if you have that......and out of prison on short sentences....then you will understand why we have the crime rates we have in our democrat party controlled cities.....