Time for Gun Safety Advocates to Abandon Their Strategy

[AZrailwhale]

The Constitution is the basis of our government. Try to argue with that one. Going back to the founding fathers I bet you didn't know that during the American revolution the founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population. The right to own a gun was only allowed if you swore an oath of loyalty to the new government. Just an interesting tibbet in the history of guns in America.

And the Bill of Rights is a document of things the government is FORBIDDEN to do. Rights are inherent to the people, the government can't grant them, only take them away.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You keep proving your ignorance. I'm quite certain nuclear weapons are illegal. Otherwise, the scenario you eluded to would have already happened.

Mass shootings are already illegal. It doesn't stop nutcases like you from committing them occasionally. Kidnapping is illegal, speeding is illegal, drug usage is illegal, all those laws are ignored.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Thank you for that story. It sets off immediate red flag warnings. The fact that you could even consider it, means you shouldn't have any weapons at all.

I think you will find that every veteran has a similar, or identical story. So, I suppose those of us who have actually sacrificed sweat and blood for our country aren't worthy of having liberty in your eyes.

 

[Briss]

Were any of those mass murders acceptable to you, that's the bottom line.

Nope.

Hmm. I get the feeling that if people give up their semiautomatic rifles to appease you, you'll then point to the new numbers and ask me if any of those murders were acceptable to me. You would, wouldn't you? And we both know you'd be calling for the ban of everything . . . eventually.

 

[2aguy]

I also notified the FBI of your postings. Precaution is the better part of valor.

Bring it…..you fascist prick.

 

[Stann]

And the Bill of Rights is a document of things the government is FORBIDDEN to do. Rights are inherent to the people, the government can't grant them, only take them away.

Actually the government has disregarded the Bill of Rights many times. The internment of the Japanese Americans is just one example.

 

[Stann]

Bring it…..you fascist prick.

OMG, Says the fascist himself.

 

[Stann]

Nope.

Hmm. I get the feeling that if people give up their semiautomatic rifles to appease you, you'll then point to the new numbers and ask me if any of those murders were acceptable to me. You would, wouldn't you? And we both know you'd be calling for the ban of everything . . . eventually.

It's not to appease me, it is long overdue. The public will not take much more of this garbage. Instead of a call to arms, it will be a call to disarm.

 

[Briss]

It's not to appease me, it is long overdue. The public will not take much more of this garbage. Instead of a call to arms, it will be a call to disarm.

I see . . .

And since criminals are notorious for responding to calls to disarm, I won't have to worry about them once they disarm.

 

[2aguy]

Actually the government has disregarded the Bill of Rights many times. The internment of the Japanese Americans is just one example.

Yes.....the democrats interned Japanese, Italian and German citizens.........just like the socialists in Europe did...but our Constitution and Bill of Rights acted as a cultural restraint, so the democrats didn't cross the line into murder the way their buddies across the Atlantic did....

 

[2aguy]

OMG, Says the fascist himself.

Your the one who wants to violate the Bill of Rights, not me...

I am, however, always curious when big government types like you call limited government types like me fascists......I am the exact opposite of fascist, while you guys love you some big government...

 

[2aguy]

It's not to appease me, it is long overdue. The public will not take much more of this garbage. Instead of a call to arms, it will be a call to disarm.

Yeah....no....

People are becoming more sophisticated on this issue....

New polling shows that support for an "assault weapons" ban in the United States has hit an all-time low despite calls from Democrats to implement a ban following a deadly mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

In a Quinnipiac University poll, conducted last week and published on Tuesday, 50 percent of registered voters support a nationwide ban on semi-automatic long guns compared to 45% who oppose which represents the lowest level of support since February 2013 when Quinnipiac began asking that question.

The highest level of support for the ban was 67% in February 2018, days after the Parkland school shooting that left 17 people dead.

Support for 'assault weapons' ban hits all-time low following Uvalde shooting: Poll

A new Quinnipiac University poll shows that support for a federal assault weapons ban has hit an all-time low despite being pushed by prominent Democrats nationwide.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Stann]

I see . . .

And since criminals are notorious for responding to calls to disarm, I won't have to worry about them once they disarm.

You'd be a better off without the gun. People who are victimized by criminals that have guns in their possession are 4.46 * more likely to be shot. You shouldn't worry about it at all. ncbi.nim.nih.gov. investigates the link between gun possession and gun assault.

 

[Stann]

You'd be a better off without the gun. People who are victimized by criminals that have guns in their possession are 4.46 * more likely to be shot. You shouldn't worry about it at all. ncbi.nim.nih.gov. investigates the link between gun possession and gun assault.

There are much better things to talk about than this kind of garbage.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Bring it…..you fascist prick.

I'm sure his local FBI office circular files his notifications.

 

[2aguy]

You'd be a better off without the gun. People who are victimized by criminals that have guns in their possession are 4.46 * more likely to be shot. You shouldn't worry about it at all. ncbi.nim.nih.gov. investigates the link between gun possession and gun assault.

Wrong.......

Let's see a quote from your link........

 

[Stann]

I'm sure his local FBI office circular files his notifications.

I understand what you said, I haven't dealt with the local office in Omaha for years. I have given some good trips to the JTTF and have contacts and a special line are called just me directly to them. I also have the fax number

 

[Stann]

Wrong.......

Let's see a quote from your link........

I'm not doing your homework. Go to the site yourself.

 

[2aguy]

You'd be a better off without the gun. People who are victimized by criminals that have guns in their possession are 4.46 * more likely to be shot. You shouldn't worry about it at all. ncbi.nim.nih.gov. investigates the link between gun possession and gun assault.

Thanks... I looked up your study....here is an actual link...

What you fail to point out........criminals shooting criminals are not normal people...but thanks for playing...

They don't tell you how many of the people are criminals.......that's kind of a big thing to know.....don't you think......

This is why we don't trust anti-gun fanatic researchers...they leave out the important details....to push their agenda...

However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[2aguy]

I'm not doing your homework. Go to the site yourself.

Yeah...the moderators might have something to say about that...but I did, in fact, do your work for you.......which is always a mistake for you anti-gun fascists...because we look at the actual studies, and find the things you want to hide...

However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).